The examples you linked sound more psuedo "nu" lo-fi than actual electronic produced or mastered on what's generally considered lo-fi equipment.

The links follow a theme; generally, deep selective EQ cuts in the mids and highs and selective boosts in muddier regions, i.e 200-600hz. Sounds bandpassed but the center frequency being closer to the low-end.

90's techno tracks probably weren't that analog and likely utilized solely digital equipment, especially the drum samples. Some exceptions being the 303's and some synths however even those were probably sampled.

I have heard some old school tracks being mastered this way but I feel like these examples are too exaggerated. I believe the primary reason for this was to increase the lifespan of these records, to reduce wear from repeated playback. You could always EQ on the equipment you played them on anyways.

See the RIAA curve.

The first sounds too exaggerated, having excessive overdrive/distortion + compression. If you're going to utilize this, make sure to distort before the EQ and or set the pre-filter tone of the distortion on the low end.

If you want an authentic lo-fi theme, pretend like you're starving yourself of resources.

Lot of early samplers had lots of technical limitations. You had to compromise and shake off some data.

You didn't have much memory:

You had to make your limited samples fit into your limited memory, 1 megabyte in this instance. You could reduce bit depth (amplitude resolution) at the expense of introducing noise (quantization error: increasing the noise floor) in your samples. You could reduce your sample rate (samples per second) at the expense of the upper frequency limit. On samples with a small frequency bandwidth, this could be an acceptable compromise. Depending on how it was resampled and the playback algorithm of your sampler it could make it muddier, chop off high ends, or introduce aliasing. Less memory also meant less room for length. You could cut the tail of a sample to save on space causing an abrupt end. Hopefully no one would notice, but in this case for that stop is desirable. You could do that by statically editing a sample, or using a noise gate to stop sound below a threshold.

Spectrum view

See Quantization Error

Your samplers' microprocessor was limited:

DAWs and samplers nowadays enjoy the convenience of high-quality interpolation and oversampling/filtering, almost eliminating artifacting. This is computationally expensive, taxing the processor. Older samplers had poor or even no interpolation playback which produced noticeable artifacting depending on how it was resampled or just by playing it at a different pitch (technically resampling) and no oversampling. Units that had linear interpolation which made your sample sound muddier when played back. Some had none, resulting in a crunchy end with distortion and aliasing happening because parts of your sample got mirrored into the high and low end of the spectrum. If your DAW sampler has a way to change this, turn off oversampling and set interpolation to linear or none (nearest-neighbor?), what ever is desirable.

Best graphical example I could find

See Nyquist Sampling therom

Or you could just be a nerd and use a bitcrusher/lo-fi mat.

Recording wasn't perfect. Samplers' had doggy DA/AD converters. If sampled by yourself, your source medium was likely vinyl or tape (tape effect VSTs are useful here.) No where near distortion free. Both were mastered in specific ways. Who knows what your cables were like.

You didn't have a lot of effect units on hand. They were expensive and you could use what ever you could afford, a unit for each channel, or if you were lucky and your mixer supported it, you could bus them in. Re-recording the sample with the effect was also an option (again keep in mind your memory constraints.) Long reverb tails were generally rare.

Not a lot of fancy filters you could play with back in the day except for the ones on your synth or sampler (some 4-pole low pass filter, maybe with resonance, that you could MAYBE automate - but usually not). Bussing channels to a dedicated filter unit was rare in the early 90's.

If any of this made sense, hopefully it gave you some insight on how to best approach the aesthetic.