These ARE sought-after tubes for MANY reasons. They DO perform differently from the original Marconi/Genalex design KT88 tubes, EVEN in an optimal-design amplifier circuit.
Of course!
Another facet of the other-thing-ness is the observation that what the guitar amp is there to do is create a sound, not reproduce it. Guitar amps that simply amplify what comes down the wire are somewhat frowned on... The Phool claims that he (and there are very few women there, so using gendered pronouns is a safe bet...) is recreating what happened before the microphone. I'm laughing, because I know how recording gear looks inside, and what counts in building it, like it being a better idea if the mike preamp can reject EMI/RFI shit from 100 metres of cable than if said preamp is linear to 200KHz...
THAT IS A VALID QUEST, just like any of the other hobbies we all enjoy and spend so much money on.
(this is a rant at the Phool, not towards mnem, just to be very clear)
I happen to work in that industry, creation of sounds (although we hang pictures onto them and call the result television), but I've found myself spending loooong days trying to make a device (mic preamp+AD+multicast streamer) on top of a mountain in a blizzard have the same idea of 48KHz as the devices 600km away in the machine room, with stochastical networks like Ethernet being the only available communications channel in between. If sound survives that and comes out as believable without buffering (we can't buffer, it has to be absolutely minimal latency, for Reasons) I can't be arsed to even listen to a Phool who is so afraid of his illusions being smashed to bits that he refuses double-blind tests between zipcord and his $1000 "speaker interconnects".
If you're going to use the sciency words, dear Phool, go with the method too. And question your ideas in the uncompromising light of scientific method.
Yeah, it is a valid quest, but like using coconut shells as horses in the search for the holy
Grail, doing it wrong will be silly.