Dude, you are 1 producer, not all of them (e.g. I'm one too, though not a big name obviously, but we don't agree, which was my main point). Also, I said it was a valid approach (especially in such long distance situations ... though even then, not as a matter of course - just did a remote session for some overdubs actually and I didn't do it like that), my issues with the article are elsewhere.
And no, modern budget level AD/DA is not better than what the pros were using 20 years ago (you shoulda said 30 cuz then ADAT, LOL, but this whole argument is unfair because that was the period of pro transition from analog to digital which was a fledgeling tech - of course it's better now.. in some ways... I'd still take an ADAT over some things; the analog circuits around the converters were better and that makes a big diff). That is another insidious marketing ploy (every single rec gear review article uses that one; come on). And no, I'm not even a tape guy. Once you get to mid level, at least, then yeah, but only compared to early digital gear - it's still not 'better' than analog, just different with some workflow and cost advantages; not worse either unless you get into subjective tonal discussions (which are fair enough, that's the whole game here). My dream rig now would be a Radar system (can't afford that any more than I can afford 2" tape).
I've used plugs and virtual instruments. It's not the same. They can sound good in a surreal way, but still surreal. I know I am a minority (not alone, but a minority) in my views as regards recording. I get the appeal of digital/virtual/simulated/modelled things - you can get the sound instantly, change it later, and it will still be perfect.... problem, IMHO, is it's too perfect and everything starts sounding the same. I also don't want to get lost in the infinate tweakability of it all; if you can have a compressor on every channel then guess what - you usually will avail yourself to that. I'm more rootsy, for lack of a better word, as regards the process. The approach affects the output, and there's things that I don't like about the output when everything is always done as described/implied by that article. Frankly a large part of the problem for me is that more and more, most people are doing most things pretty much the same most of the time. I get it; easier/quicker/cheaper, but where's the exploration and experimentation; it's too fast paced (on the front end, and then endless mixing - I prefer allocating the time in the opposite fashion - spend the time in the beginning and the mixes just fall together with actually very minimal, comparatively, post processing). Slow it down and actually figure it out first; don't rush it. It may even be a false economy (it being faster), but it depends on the engineer/producer, I suppose.
For the first 5ish years of my recording history I recorded all guitars direct FYI; at the time I got made fun of for it (only bass and keys can be direct bro), but I loved it for certain things (clean with modulation, not dirty parts so much). Now everyone is doing it and either plugins or reamping. I'm down, but sometimes a mic in front of a wall of speakers is the ticket and there ain't no plugin for some of the things I have done.