This IEEE Spectrum article on Jimi Hendrix's engineering techniques exemplifies technical journalism in service of public education and cultural understanding. The content advocates for free expression and educational access through publicly available technical analysis, while the underlying platform demonstrates structural commitment to privacy rights and inclusive access through privacy-conscious consent defaults and responsive design.
This is why I feel the recentish (last 10-15 years) shift in decoupling CS curricula from EE and CE fundamentals in the US is doing a massive disservice to newer students entering the industry.
DSP, Control Engineering, Circuit Design, understanding pipelining and caching, and other fundamentals are important for people to understand higher levels of the abstraction layers (eg. much of deep learning is built on top of Optimization Theory principles which are introduced in a DSP class).
The value of Computer Science isn't the ability to whiteboard a Leetcode hard question or glue together PyTorch commands - it's the ability to reason across multiple abstraction layers.
And newer grads are significantly deskilled due to these curriculum changes. If I as a VC know more about Nagle's Algorithm (hi Animats!) than some of the potential technical founders for network security or MLOps companies, we are in trouble.
I've often marveled at the success many guitar players had with experimental electronics - Hendrix, EVH, Les Paul, Brian May, Jack White, and Tom Scholz (special case, of course) are just a few examples.
This is a terrible article. In the first subplot, there is no explanation of what v(b1) and v(c2) are. The -8 on the on y axis (amplitude) looks like an upside down 8.
Further down there is a sentence: "First, the Fuzz Face is a two-transistor feedback amplifier that turns a gentle sinusoid signal into an almost binary “fuzzy” output." But the figure does not match this - there is no "gentle sinusoid" wave shown on the first fuzz face plot.
I strongly believe that if you set aside genre preferences the solid body electric guitar coupled to a tube amplifier is objectively the greatest electronic instrument ever created.
All other electronic instruments, with the one exception being the Theramin, have a fundamental problem with human expression. There is an unsolvable disconnect between what the performer's actions and their audience.
With an electric guitar you get the physicality and dynamism of an acoustic instrument with the complex timbres and extended technique possibilities of an electric/electronic instrument.
There are complex and musically significant feedback loops occurring across many dimensions that lead to extremely complex transformations of timbre via both traditional music theoretical techniques and the physics of a tube amplifier combined with an inductive load (the guitar pickup).
Its really crazy how much more dynamic and complex this can be then even a highly sophisticated modular synthesizer or whatever. Even the way you over load the power supply in a tube amplifier can be manipulated on the fly to enhance and transform timbre.
Then on top of all that it is so incredibly physical that a performer like Jimi Hendrix can manipulate these systems and have the audience intuitively understand what he is doing. Never in a million years would THAT be possible with any other electronic instrument.
Hendrix reportedly discovered feedback by walking away from a cranked amp. The guitar just kept sustaining on its own. What followed was years of empirical system identification: learning how body position, pickup selection, and guitar-to-amp distance affected feedback character. No transfer function, just iteration. That's a valid engineering methodology.
Crazy example of when everything is AI generated, even the code referenced in git repo (refer to commit 3d733ca), and actually interesting and "new" in a way...
Nice article for engineers to understand something that most guitar players will intuitively know.
One of the great things about a hi-gain setup like Hendrix's is how the feedback loop will inject an element of controlled chaos into the sound. It allows for emergent fluctuations in timbre that Hendrix can wrangle, but never fully control. It's the squealing, chaotic element in something like his 'Star Spangled Banner'. It's a positive feedback loop that can run away from the player and create all kinds of unexpected elements.
The art of Hendrix's playing, then, is partly in how he harnessed that sound and integrated it into his voice. And of course, he's a force of nature when he does so.
A great place to hear artful feedback would be the intro to Prince's 'Computer Blue'. It's the squealing "birdsong" at the beginning and ending of the record. You can hear it particularly well if you search for 'Computer Blue - Hallway Speech Version' with the extended intro.
In a sluggish economy
Inflation, recession
Hits the land of the free
Standing in unemployment lines
Blame the government for hard time
We just get by
However we can
We all gotta duck
When the shit hits the fan
It's because there's clearly a near-1:1 ratio of input to output. I also noticed some LLMisms, and I suspect the author may have ran the text (perhaps in the form of a large number of bullet points) through an LLM. But because he's using the LLM to clean instead of multiply, it's still worth reading.
Art and engineering are both constrained optimization problems - at their core, both involve transforming a loosely defined aesthetic desire into a repeatable methodology!
And if we can call ourselves software engineers, where our day-to-day (mostly) involves less calculus and more creative interpretation of loose ideas, in the context of a corpus of historical texts that we literally call "libraries" - are we not artists and art historians?
We're far closer to Jimi than Roger, in many ways. Pots and kettles :)
I came into a CS and math background without CE or EE, and took two dedicated optimization courses (one happened to be in a EE department, but had no EE prereqs), as well as the optimization introduced in machine learning classes. To be honest a lot of the older school optimization is barely even useful, second-order methods are a bit passe for large scale ML, largely because they don't work, not because people aren't aware (Adam and Muon can be seen as approximations to second-order methods, though, so it is useful to be aware of that structure).
Isn't Nagle usually introduced in a networking class typically taken by CS (non-CE/EE) undergrads?
Just because EEs are exposed to some mathematical concepts during their training doesn't mean that non-EEs are not exposed through a different path.
LLM-isms are tolerably bad. LLM's narrative ability is intolerably terrible. As others said, because a human actually wrote the overall narration for this, it was still compelling to read. The mistake would be skipping a well-narrated and thoughtful article just because of a few bad LLMisms.
I think LLM's lack of "theory of mind" leads to them severely underperforming on narration and humor.
Hi! I work at IEEE Spectrum and there's no way an LLM wrote this. We have a pretty strict Generative AI use policy (bottom of this page https://spectrum.ieee.org/about). I'm guessing this is from writers using actual writing techniques that Gen AI stole from...
There have been some interesting keyboard input devices coming out which allow for more expression than normal piano keys, using a sort of hack to the MIDI system called MPE - MIDI Polyphonic Expression. For example the Seaboard Rise or the Osmose. Depending on the instrument it's possible to do per-note pitch bends, change pressure while holding notes, perform vibrato etc. Visually the physical movement is not as interesting as electric guitar though, so yours probably still wins.
The podcast "History of Rock in 500 Songs" (full disclosure: I am a devout, slavering fan) provides these on the regular. I was actually smiling when I heard a fairly new song that attempts a really flat, fuzzed out sound because it made me think, "Buddy Holly invented that by accident with a broken speaker". One of the episodes on The Who goes into the Marshall behind Marshall amps in similar detail.
I suppose if I were going to recommend a single episode to Hacker News though, it would be https://500songs.com/podcast/episode-146-good-vibrations-by-... which begins with at least a half hour on the amazing (if not happy) life of the guy who invented the Theremin, Lev Sergeyevich Termen.
> There is an unsolvable disconnect between what the performer's actions and their audience
Is that really true though? If I watch a cellist play I can pretty clearly see all the things they are doing and it will correlate neatly to the timbre of the sound.
Secondly I think it's important to note the tube amp and the guitar are seperable, and I don't think that their connection is particularly magical. I can reamp a sound from my synthesizer (or maybe a keytar?) into a guitar chain, and if I manipulate the mic and other controls in the same way I might manipulate the pickup, I can also get all manner of interesting feedback effects. My inputs will have different harmonic characteristics of course, and the tube amp's effects are mostly transformations of harmonics; you'll still get some cool tones and they will be subject to a lot of the same rules as if a guitar was being played.
The reverse example of this is musicians who play techno with analog instruments, like Pipe Guy, Basstong, and Meute[0][1][2].
There are always some people who get extremely defensive whenever I say that techno didn't click for me until I heard this kind of "techlow" music. Specifically about the part where I think that the reason is also a human expression problem, because of limitations imposed by the electronic media used.
EDIT: having said that, I don't think I would agree with your premise, because it is colored by a subtle form of survivor bias. None of us remember what it's like to not know electronic guitars or what they sound like, so claiming "the audience intuitively understands what Jimmy Hendrix is doing" is like saying everyone "intuitively understands" their native language. On top of that there's nothing about the workings of an electronic guitar that wouldn't in principle work for something like an electronic violin or whatever.
Great argument -- but I'd also counter that "the turntable" (i.e. in the hands of experts like Q-Bert, Craze, Rob Swift, Jazzy Jeff and others) fits this quite well -- especially re your "have the audience understand what he is doing argument"
I graduated in 2020 and I took a circuit design class and was taught Nagles algorithm. I guess I could have learned more but I thought the degree was packed enough with enough when you consider all the different parts of it, from the math to systems programming to ML stuff.
I’m curious because to tell you the truth the novelty struck me as similar to comparisons I’ve toyed with using LLMs on my own. The AI-generated logic between comparing two dissimilar things is too sterile for my liking.
I understand that this is appearing in technical publication, but for some reason that invites even further scrutiny on my behalf.
That's stretching the term to the breaking point, for me. Is there some evidence of systematic analysis of component parts? attempts to model elements of the problem? data gathering and data analysis? simulation? Intentional application of principles of physics or some other pure domain to a real world problem?
Artistic endeavors come from lots of places, not just people with an analytical mindset. Historically those two are seen as opposing tendencies, which I think is unfair, but it points to the importance of intuition and navigating perception and emotion for artists.
> All other electronic instruments, with the one exception being the Theramin, have a fundamental problem with human expression. There is an unsolvable disconnect between what the performer's actions and their audience.
Electric bass? Heck, even in synthesizers, you have the EWI or the Haken Continuum.
Any guitarist in a 1940s big band would have a big hollowbody guitar and an amp. That combination is incredibly prone to feedback. Everyone worked to reduce feedback and avoid it. That's what I do with my hollowbody when I play with a big band. It's the first thing that happens when you turn up.
Hendrix did not "discover" feedback, and in fact he did not discover the musical uses of feedback - you can hear it in BB King records that predate Hendrix, where feedback makes his notes "sing."
What Hendrix did was turn feedback into an intentional musical creation that he treated as a melodic voice.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.35
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.35
SETL
+0.23
Content exemplifies freedom of expression and information through technical journalism; explains engineering concepts to inform public understanding of technology and culture.
FW Ratio: 57%
Observable Facts
Article is published by IEEE Spectrum, an IEEE-affiliated technical publication.
Content is publicly accessible without paywall or registration requirement.
Service worker registration enables offline reading capability.
Article explains technical engineering concepts for general audience comprehension.
Inferences
Technical journalism from established IEEE organization demonstrates commitment to informing public on technology policy and culture.
Removal of access barriers (no paywall, no registration) structurally enables freedom of expression and information access.
Offline reading capability extends freedom of access beyond connectivity constraints.
+0.20
Article 12Privacy
Medium Practice
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
-0.11
No explicit editorial content on privacy rights, but technical material does not intrude on personal matters.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Google Tag Manager consent defaults deny ad_storage, analytics_storage, ad_user_data, and ad_personalization.
ads_data_redaction flag set to true in analytics configuration.
Personalization storage denied by default.
Inferences
Privacy-first default settings indicate structural respect for privacy rights.
Ads data redaction suggests publisher-side privacy protection beyond legal minimums.
+0.20
Article 26Education
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.14
Content exemplifies right to education by explaining complex technical concepts accessibly to general audience; promotes technical literacy.
Content tagged as 'DIY' section, suggesting educational/instructional framing.
Inferences
Accessible explanation of technical concepts supports public education and technical literacy.
Public access structure enables free educational benefit to all readers.
+0.15
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
0.00
Content demonstrates commitment to public education through technical journalism, aligning with Preamble values of human dignity and rational discourse by explaining complex engineering concepts accessibly.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article is publicly accessible without registration or paywall.
Content explains technical engineering concepts related to sound synthesis and guitar effects.
Privacy default settings deny ad storage, analytics storage, and ad personalization.
Inferences
The accessibility and educational framing suggest alignment with Preamble principles of informed public discourse.
Privacy-conscious defaults indicate respect for human dignity in data practices.
+0.15
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium Advocacy
Editorial
+0.15
SETL
+0.09
Content participates in cultural life by analyzing engineering and artistic achievement (Jimi Hendrix); explains technical culture to broad audience.
FW Ratio: 60%
Observable Facts
Article analyzes Jimi Hendrix's cultural and technical achievement.
Content explores engineering aspects of music production and cultural impact.
Publicly accessible structure enables broad cultural participation.
Inferences
Technical analysis of music culture supports participation in cultural life.
Free access enables shared cultural discourse.
+0.10
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
0.00
Content focuses on technical subject matter without explicit discussion of discrimination, but accessible presentation suggests inclusive approach.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Responsive CSS patterns indicate mobile and multi-device support.
Service worker registration suggests offline accessibility considerations.
Inferences
Responsive design suggests commitment to non-discriminatory access across device types.
Accessibility utilities indicate awareness of diverse user needs.
+0.10
Article 21Political Participation
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
0.00
Content does not address political participation directly, but accessibility design supports inclusive participation in information access.
FW Ratio: 67%
Observable Facts
Responsive design patterns support access from diverse device types.
Accessibility CSS utilities indicate consideration for diverse user needs.
Inferences
Accessibility features support inclusive participation in informed discourse.
+0.05
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Low Practice
Editorial
+0.05
SETL
0.00
Content is publicly accessible on a single domain; no restrictions on movement observed.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Article is accessible without geographic restrictions.
Inferences
Global accessibility suggests respect for freedom of movement in digital space.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No observable content addressing inherent dignity, equality, or reasoning/conscience directly.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
No observable content addressing right to life, liberty, or security of person.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No observable content addressing slavery or servitude.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No observable content addressing torture or cruel treatment.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No observable content addressing right to recognition as person before law.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No observable content addressing equality before law.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No observable content addressing effective remedies for rights violations.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No observable content addressing arbitrary arrest or detention.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No observable content addressing fair trial rights.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No observable content addressing retroactive criminal liability.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No observable content addressing asylum or persecution.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No observable content addressing nationality rights.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No observable content addressing marriage or family rights.
ND
Article 17Property
No observable content addressing property rights.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No observable content addressing freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No observable content addressing freedom of assembly or association.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No observable content addressing social security or cultural rights.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
No observable content addressing labor rights.
FW Ratio: 50%
Observable Facts
Author is identified as 'Rohan S. Puranik, edge-computing architect and company founder.'
Inferences
Clear author attribution suggests respect for intellectual labor and creative rights.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
No observable content addressing rest and leisure rights.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
No observable content addressing health or welfare rights.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
No observable content addressing social and international order.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
No observable content addressing limitations on rights.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
No observable content addressing interpretation of rights.
Structural Channel
What the site does
Domain Context Profile
Element
Modifier
Affects
Note
Privacy
+0.15
Article 12
Default consent denies ad storage, analytics storage, ad user data, and ad personalization; grants functionality and security storage. Indicates privacy-conscious default posture.
Terms of Service
—
No ToS observable in provided content.
Accessibility
+0.10
Article 2 Article 21
Service worker registration and responsive design patterns observed; CSS utilities suggest accessibility considerations, though full accessibility audit not available.
Mission
+0.05
Preamble Article 19
IEEE Spectrum is a technical journalism publication; implicit commitment to informing public on technology policy.
Editorial Code
—
No explicit editorial standards or corrections policy visible.
Ownership
+0.05
Article 19
IEEE publisher; established non-profit technical organization associated with press freedom norms.
Access Model
+0.05
Article 19
Public article accessible without paywall or registration gate observed.
Ad/Tracking
+0.10
Article 12
Ads data redaction enabled; ads_data_redaction true flag indicates publisher-side privacy protection.
+0.25
Article 12Privacy
Medium Practice
Structural
+0.25
Context Modifier
+0.25
SETL
-0.11
Privacy-conscious consent defaults (denying ad storage, analytics storage, ad personalization, and user data tracking) plus ads_data_redaction flag demonstrate structural protection of privacy.
+0.20
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Framing
Structural
+0.20
Context Modifier
+0.15
SETL
+0.23
Public access without paywall or registration, owned by IEEE (non-profit technical organization), service worker for offline access, and global accessibility support structural commitment to free expression.
+0.15
PreamblePreamble
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.15
Context Modifier
+0.05
SETL
0.00
Public access without paywall and privacy-conscious default consent settings reflect organizational commitment to informed citizenry.
+0.10
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Low Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
+0.10
SETL
0.00
Responsive design patterns and accessibility considerations in CSS utilities suggest intent to serve diverse users.
+0.10
Article 21Political Participation
Low Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
+0.10
SETL
0.00
Responsive design and accessibility utilities in CSS suggest structural commitment to inclusive access.
+0.10
Article 26Education
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.14
Public access and lack of paywalls structurally support educational access.
+0.10
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.09
Public, freely-accessible platform enables participation in shared cultural analysis.
+0.05
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Low Practice
Structural
+0.05
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
0.00
No geographic or access-based restrictions observable; content accessible globally.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
No structural signals observable regarding equal treatment or non-discrimination.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
No structural signals observable regarding protection of fundamental freedoms.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
No structural signals observable regarding labor practices.
ND
Article 5No Torture
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 14Asylum
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 15Nationality
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 17Property
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
No structural signals observable regarding assembly rights.
ND
Article 22Social Security
No structural signals observable.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Author identified by name (Rohan S. Puranik) and credentials, suggesting fair attribution practices.