Not much need to (or benefit in doing so). If you're somebody like AnalogMan, building pedals with careful selection of NOS transistors wired point-to-point, this is so utterly not a threat to you.

I've seen entirely analog circuits designed and built with the PCB parts and techniques used in these devices, that are miles away from the quality of good pedals, without even being digital or modeling at all. I'm sure the problem circuits measure completely fine, and then you A/B them with a truly great pedal and it's chalk and cheese.

If you try to argue the point, people committed to the digital modeling model get quite fierce, so tone hounds learn to just roll their eyes and not engage. You can also think of it as learning to rely on secret weapons.

"tone hounds"? There are many hundreds to many thousands of pedals. Everyone has their own favorites. There is no "right" in this world. There's just as much chance that whatever "error" a modelled pedal may embody is preferred by its users as there is that it will be deemed worse.

See "4.4. Listening Tests" of the research the technology is based on

https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/41964332/Real_t...

those are MUSHRA tests, meaning only skilled listeners are allowed to participate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHRA

Andersons has a few YouTube videos where the Kemper profiler fools tone hounds enough that you can infer that it's already good enough. The NeuralDSP hardware is of at least similar quality, maybe better in some instances.

Sure if you run a null test these will fail, but in real life it's really up to how honest the tone hound in question is, and if you can trap them into being honest.

If you're talking product viability, something like the Pepsi challenge, double blind testing, would probably be effective marketing.

Tone hounds do a good enough job of fooling themselves.