How did Jimi Hendrix turn his guitar into a wave synthesizer? Dive into the engineering behind his iconic sound.
3 February 1967 is a day that belongs in the annals of music history. It’s the day that Jimi Hendrix entered London’s Olympic Studios to record a song using a new component. The song was “Purple Haze,” and the component was the Octavia guitar pedal, created for Hendrix by sound engineer Roger Mayer. The pedal was a key element of a complex chain of analog elements responsible for the final sound, including the acoustics of the studio room itself. When they sent the tapes for remastering in the United States, the sounds on it were so novel that they included an accompanying note explaining that the distortion at the end was not malfunction but intention. A few months later, Hendrix would deliver his legendary electric guitar performance at the Monterey International Pop Festival.
“Purple Haze” firmly established that an electric guitar can be used not just as a stringed instrument with built-in pickups for convenient sound amplification, but also as a full-blown wave synthesizer whose output can be manipulated at will. Modern guitarists can reproduce Hendrix’s chain using separate plug-ins in digital audio workstation software, but the magic often disappears when everything is buffered and quantized. I wanted to find out if a more systematic approach could do a better job and provide insights into how Hendrix created his groundbreaking sound.
My fascination with Hendrix’s Olympic Studios’ performance arose because there is a “Hendrix was an alien” narrative surrounding his musical innovation—that his music appeared more or less out of nowhere. I wanted to replace that narrative with an engineering-driven account that’s inspectable and reproducible—plots, models, and a signal chain from the guitar through the pedals that you can probe stage by stage.
Each effects pedal in Hendrix’s chain contributed to enhancing the electric guitar beyond its intrinsic limits. A selection of plots from the full-circuit analysis shows how the Fuzz Face turns a sinusoid signal from a string into an almost square wave; how the Octavia pedal inverts half the input waveform to double its frequency; how the wah-wah pedal acts as band-pass filter; and how the Uni-Vibe pedal introduces selective phase shifts to color the sound.James Provost/ Rohan S. Puranik
Although I work mostly in the digital domain as an edge-computing architect in my day job, I knew that analog circuit simulations would be the key to going deeper.
My first step was to look at the challenges Hendrix was trying to address. Before the 1930s, guitars were too quiet for large ensembles. Electromagnetic pickups—coils of wire wrapped around magnets that detect the vibrations of metal strings—fixed the loudness problem. But they left a new one: the envelope, which specifies how the amplitude of a note varies as it’s played on an instrument, starting with a rising initial attack, followed by a falling decay, and then any sustain of the note after that. Electric guitars attack hard, decay fast, and don’t sustain like bowed strings or organs. Early manufacturers tried to modify the electric guitar’s characteristics by using hollow bodies fitted with magnetic pickups, but the instrument still barked more than it sang.
Hendrix’s mission was to reshape both the electric guitar’s envelope and its tone until it could feel like a human voice. He tackled the guitar’s constraints by augmenting it. His solution was essentially a modular analog signal chain driven not by knobs but by hands, feet, gain staging, and physical movement in a feedback field.
Hendrix’s setups are well documented: Set lists, studio logs, and interviews with Mayer and Eddie Kramer, then the lead engineer at Olympic Studios, fill in the details. The signal chain for “Purple Haze” consisted of a set of pedals—a Fuzz Face, the Octavia, and a wah-wah—plus a Marshall 100-watt amplifier stack, with the guitar and room acoustics closing a feedback loop that Hendrix tuned with his own body. Later, Hendrix would also incorporate a Uni-Vibe pedal for many of his tracks. All the pedals were commercial models except for the Octavia, which Mayer built to produce a distorted signal an octave higher than its input.
Hendrix didn’t speak in decibels and ohm values, but he collaborated with engineers who did.
I obtained the schematics for each of these elements and their accepted parameter ranges, and converted them into netlists that ngspice can process (ngpsice is an open source implementation of the Spice circuit analyzer). The Fuzz Face pedal came in two variants, using germanium or silicon transistors, so I created models for both. In my models, Hendrix’s guitar pickups had a resistance of 6 kiloohms and an inductance of 2.5 henrys with a realistic cable capacitance.
I chained the circuit simulations together using a script, and I produced data-plot and sample sound outputs with Python scripts. All of the ngspice files and other scripts are available in my GitHub repository at github.com/nahorov/Hendrix-Systems-Lab, with instructions on how to reproduce my simulations.
What Does The Analysis of Hendrix’s Signal Chain Tell Us?
Plotting the signal at different points in the chain with different parameters reveals how Hendrix configured and manipulated the nonlinear complexities of the system as a whole to reach his expressive goals.
A few highlights: First, the Fuzz Face is a two-transistor feedback amplifier that turns a gentle sinusoid signal into an almost binary “fuzzy” output. The interesting behavior emerges when the guitar’s volume is reduced. Because the pedal’s input impedance is very low (about 20 kΩ), the pickups interact directly with the pedal circuit. Reducing amplitude restores a sinusoidal shape—producing the famous “cleanup effect” that was a hallmark of Hendrix’s sound, where the fuzz drops in and out as desired while he played.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience, (left to right) Mitch Mitchel, Jimi Hendrix, Noel ReddingFred W. McDarrah/Getty Images
Second, the Octavio pedal used a rectifier, which normally converts alternating to direct current. Mayer realized that a rectifier effectively flips each trough of a waveform into a peak, doubling the number of peaks per second. The result is an apparent doubling of frequency—a bloom of second-harmonic content that the ear hears a bright octave above the fundamental.
Third, the wah-wah pedal is a band-pass filter: Frequency plots show the center frequency sweeping from roughly 300 hertz to 2 kilohertz. Hendrix used it to make the guitar “talk” with vowel sounds, most iconically on “Voodoo Child (Slight Return).”
Fourth, the Uni-Vibe cascades four phase-shift sections controlled by photoresistors. In circuit terms, it’s a low-frequency oscillator modulating a variable-phase network; in musical terms it’s motion and air.
Finally, the whole chain became a closed loop by driving the Marshall amplifier near saturation, which among other things extends the sustain. In a reflective room, the guitar strings couple acoustically to the speakers—move a few centimeters and you shift from one stable feedback mode to another. To an engineer, this is a gain-controlled acoustic feedback system. To Hendrix, it was part of the instrument. He learned to tune oscillation with distance and angle, shaping sirens, bombs, and harmonics by walking the edge of instability.
Hendrix didn’t speak in decibels and ohm values, but he collaborated with engineers who did—Mayer and Kramer—and iterated fast as a systems engineer. Reframing Hendrix as an engineer doesn’t diminish the art. It explains how one person, in under four years as a bandleader, could pull the electric guitar toward its full potential by systematically augmenting the instrument’s shortcomings for maximum expression.
This article appears in the March 2026 print issue as “Jimi Hendrix, Systems Engineer.”
Read the original article
Comments
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.
Star Spangled Banner was incredible. The way you can hear the machine guns, choppers, sirens, screaming in agony… that was a masterpiece.
> The way you can hear the machine guns, choppers, sirens, screaming in agony…
You know, I've heard that performance so many times over so many decades that I don't have to hit a play button or even close my eyes in order to hear it. It's there inside my head when I want it to be.
And somehow I never interpreted it in that way (sirens, screaming, etc) until just a moment ago. I thought it was just a quirky little early-morning break in the familiar tune from someone who had been up way too long by that point.
And now instead of just being the quirky sounds of an impromptu guitar solo that I can recall whenever I wish, it now has unpleasant pictures to go with it.
Thanks (I think).
The imagery of 1969, I remember it well. The Vietnam war was the first war that was televised. Everyone would watch the nightly news at 6:30 pm (take my word for it) and hear the choppers, gunfire and real life screams of people.
I thought it was sheer genius that Hendrix was able to subtly bring that into the national anthem which made it resonate so well with those purchasing his music. But without that background reference I never supposed that younger generations would hear it entirely differently.
By xtiansimon 2026-02-2613:333 reply > "The imagery of 1969, I remember it well. The Vietnam war was the first war that was televised. Everyone would watch the nightly news at 6:30 pm (take my word for it) and hear the choppers, gunfire and real life screams of people."
Slightly off-topic--
Before my time, but my professor* recalled to our class his experience watching a _live_ news report from Vietnam. Something shocking happened during the broadcast. As a visual-media scholar he contacted the station to obtain a copy. No go. He remarked how he never saw that footage ever again (at that time it would have been over 15 years ago). In our modern digital age it's difficult to imagine anything going live to the nation, and then disappearing.
* (Charles Chess, Introduction to Film, SJSU, c1992)
By rmason 2026-03-035:22 He might want to search the Marion Stokes collection once the Internet Archive has it all digitized. She recorded thirty years of TV for most of the major networks.
By m3047 2026-02-2620:32 The thing which blows my mind is that the NIC handle database is simply gone. This was the database of everyone who was responsible for some internet asset (typically a domain name) in some fashion such that it was recorded for operators' use. You could look it up, it was public. Now it's simply gone. (I'm FWM6)
By we_have_options 2026-02-2615:28 > In our modern digital age it's difficult to imagine anything going live to the nation, and then disappearing.
The Epstein files would like a chat with you.
As would "flood the zone".
By skhr0680 2026-02-261:27 Maggot Brain begins with on-the-nose apocalyptic imagery, but ends with a release and rebirth. One day, the fighting stops.
By WalterBright 2026-02-2617:081 reply Recently, the movie "Cleopatra" was on TV. I was watching it with the sound off while I did other things.
There was one scene where Rich Burton and Elizabeth Taylor were arguing with each other. I watched their lips move, and somehow I heard Burton speaking his lines in his voice, and Taylor her lines in her voice. I had to do a double take to see that the sound was actually muted, but my mind re-created it anyway.
By sophacles 2026-02-2618:30 Going way way off topic - when those two were a couple they had a house in Puerto Vallerta, casa Kimberly thats now a hotel. I stayed there once in the late 90s and from their website it hasn't really changed since I was there. The whole time I could just imagine them being there living the hollywood getaway lifestyle. Definitely a cool place to stay - in the old town not in the resort area, and very much worth it if you get the chance. (although it does look more expensive than it was then, even adjusting for inflation).
I read your comment and immediately wondered how much of my braincells are permanently occupied with remembering music. Probably quite a lot in an absolute sense but I wonder about the percentage of storage and whether or not that could have been used in other ways. And of course then I wonder if they are stored compressed, and whether that is lossy compression or not ;)
BrainOS 1.1> Optimize Memory (Y/N) __
By WalterBright 2026-02-2617:11 Thousands of songs reside quite comfortably in my brain. It's rather amazing.
I can tell when a musician is lip syncing their hit song, because nobody sings a song the same way twice, and the performance exactly matched the CD version of the song.
By cwmoore 2026-02-263:30 Some of those sounds are also on his Band of Gypsy's album, most obviously the song "Machine Gun".
Well, lucky you anyway - I'd give up a lot to be able to instantly play Jimi Hendrix in my mind!
By ssl-3 2026-02-2614:26 It's all tradeoffs. I can't remember names or faces even if doing so is worth money.
Instead, I can recall the complete works of Roger Waters or Nine Inch Nails, but not the names of the songs unless I really studied that part. I can recall themes from TV shows from decades ago, but be unable to place the name of the show.
At any given time, anywhere at all, I can listen to any of at least five different covers of Fat Bottomed Girls -- and have no idea who performed any of them, and therefore no ability to share them with others.
It's an interesting way to be and it is the only way I know, but there's reasons that I'm terrible at being a DJ.
By 9dev 2026-02-2611:18 Sorry (I guess) :-)
By hiddencost 2026-02-2616:54 Is yan anti war, anti imperialist song.
By musictubes 2026-02-264:282 reply If you listen to the Woodstock soundtrack it is clear that Hendrix was on a completely different musical level than anyone else in that scene. Ravi Shankar was probably the only person there above him from a chops perspective and possibly in the expressivity department as well. But when it came to sheer inventiveness no one was close to Hendrix. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to see and hear him. It must have felt like an alien was performing.
By IAmBroom 2026-02-2614:15 The Who followed him, and famously destroyed their entire set in a vain attempt to be noticed.
Like a jealous plumber, worried that Kim Kardashian's "Break the Internet" photo series will take away from his appeal, hurriedly posting photos of his plumber's crack online...
By WalterBright 2026-02-2617:12 The drum solo by the Santana drummer was epic as well.
By sonofhans 2026-02-2611:07 Yeah, it’s always seemed that way to me too. Like a sonic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)
I've not listened to that song much at all. I am however obsessed with Machine Gun which has all those elements and more. Maybe I'll have a re-listen to SSB.
By 9dev 2026-02-266:54 Do it; I think the political subtext of weaving an anti-war statement into the national anthem makes it both very obvious and very elegant at the same time.
The first time I had an amp distorted and loud enough to cause feedback (if I wanted to) at band practice was the most magical day of my life.
I had heard it a lot in punk and pop-punk to create swells. I improvised my still-favorite solo that day.
By douglee650 2026-02-260:14 I wonder if tube harmonics modeled by solid state settings has shaped music. Of course it has; music from that era is instrument-oriented.
The discovery of feedback tones and the resulting incorporation in the musical experience — a three hour warm bank of tubes turned up to the limit with a maxxed out savant unlocking new realms of sound.
By fuzzfactor 2026-02-2618:06 It's quite likely that when Hendrix went to London the first time, he was the first person ever to play a Stratocaster through a Marshall full stack at full volume.
Also maybe not until the night of his first big gig there.
Townshend had Marshall build 100 watters so he could play louder clean, Clapton had already been cranking it with a Gibson SG which is a characteristic sound all its own, he was in the audience at the gig and was blown away watching Hendrix.
Every year from at least 1964 to 1984, more advanced amps were made than ever existed before.
> 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.
One thing for me to notice is his playing does not require a rhythm guitarist. I discovered that what worked well is Mitch Mitchell as a Jazz drummer his playing was heavily influenced by classics. In a way it complemented Jimi's guitar tone so well.
By nineteen999 2026-02-2610:231 reply While I love Mitch's drumming and Noel's bass, can you imagine if Hendrix had worked with Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce - both much more confident and strident players than the Experience's rythym section.
That would have blown the doors off of everything.
I don't think there was another as "out there" guitar player as Jimi until EVH came along - a little more controlled, but just as confident and chaotic. EVH was quite the systems engineer himself (variac, Floyd Rose later on etc)
Jimmy wasn't as good as Miles at collaboration.
Miles always impressed me with his ability to pick the best to back him up, and /then/ let them take the front. Some tracks he barely plays on, waiting minutes for his entry.
Jimmy wanted the best to back him up. But I agree with you; I'm just pointing out why I think he didn't.
Agreed! Like Pharaoh's Dance on Bitch's Brew, Davis doesn't come in for like 4 minutes. Same with In A Silent Way. He just lets the band groove for a while, THEN takes the lead.
In Davis' autobiography, he mentions trying to work with Jimi. I don't think it would have worked really, but who knows. Jimi was completely self taught, while Miles went to Juliard, I don't see how they would have communicated musically, literally. Like, if Miles tells Jimi to try a diminished chord here, or some modal scale there, Miles would have ended up doing a LOT of teaching along the way. And I say this as a guitarist of 30+ years who loves both of them.
Considering that Miles was firmly in a modal music phase at that point, I don't see Jimi's lack of formal training as a hindrance at all. I think he'd be able to hang just fine with Mile's band. Even if Jimi couldn't read changes on a chart, I'm sure he'd have no problem working it out by ear.
By jawilson2 2026-02-2713:13 I'd like to think that, I love this period from Davis, and love Hendrix, so it would have been great to see a collab.
In terms of communication, I am thinking of something like the musical equivalent to software design patterns, etc. I.e. imagine two devs are pair coding, one of whom has a CS degree from 2002 and one is skilled but self-taught. While working together, the first starts talking about observer or singleton patterns, which the 2nd has never heard of but has coded something 90% of the way there on intuition. There could be some friction as they establish a common language. (Yes, this is based on experience, with myself more or less on both sides of the exchange at one point or another).
By nineteen999 2026-02-2618:21 Going to assume you mean Miles Davis and not Buddy Miles here! Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah that's a good insight.
By prettyblocks 2026-02-261:501 reply I think I recall reading about Hendrix that he tried to emulate the sounds of cartoons with his guitar, and then when he was in the army he did the same with trying to reproduce the sounds of fighter jets. Not sure if urban legend, but cool origin story.
By altmanaltman 2026-02-2610:032 reply [flagged]
By walthamstow 2026-02-2613:081 reply Ethically pure 60s musicians are pretty hard to come by
By Enginerrrd 2026-02-2613:161 reply Ethical humans are pretty hard to come by if you put them under a microscope.
By Enginerrrd 2026-02-2618:17 I agree but when you’re dealing with celebrities people sometimes lie and exaggerate, and third parties sometimes extrapolate beyond any semblance of grounded facts. So most people subject to that level of scrutiny and fame are likely to have some allegations against them whether true or not.
Hendrix’s girlfriend Kathy Etchingham claims he never abused her. Some third parties dispute her claims about her relationship.
His arrest record suggests at least some type of altercation with a previous girlfriend but it’s far from clear cut to me.
People are complex and reality is complex. I myself was subject to false accusations about abuse from a disgruntled ex girlfriend (who actually WAS in fact physically and mentally abusive to me and I have the scars to prove it).
But regardless, I have zero issues reflecting on a person’s accomplishments and talents even in the context of them being a horrible person. In fact, I find that part of the intrigue of really talented people. Reality and people are quite multi-dimensional. The only general rule I know is that nobody is perfect and holding up ANYone as some example of moral perfection is almost certainly wrong.
By IAmBroom 2026-02-2614:19 OT1H, yeah: angry misogynist bad.
OTOH: why does his accidental fatal pathway tarnish him morally to you?
Very mixed message: "Don't beat women nor vomit!"
By WalterBright 2026-02-2617:235 reply This leaves me wondering what would happen if you attached a coupling to a trumpet and ran the sound through an effects/feedback box. Why should electric guitars have all the fun?
By xcf_seetan 2026-02-2618:08 Well,i remember a performance of Jorge Lima Barreto (Portuguese electronic/free jazz) playing with a saxophonist with 2 microphones, one normal and the other with a brutal delay. He would play on the normal microphone and sometimes he directed the instrument output to the delayed microphone and it sounded monumental. Not sure what musician he was, i think is Tomas Stanko, but not sure. The performance sounded like you went through a big storm. :D
By Slow_Hand 2026-02-272:26 I like the thought, but trumpets require a lot of energy to excite them (i.e. you have to blow a LOT of air into a horn just to get a note. Getting an instrument like that to feedback would require a pretty radical system.
The difference with electric guitars is that guitar pickups are relatively sensitive and then go through multiple stages of amplification, which makes the system ripe for feedback loops.
Some saxophone players have been known to generate feedback through on-board microphones. Strictly speaking, this isn't exciting the horn, but it does introduce feedback that's excited BY the instrument.
By schrectacular 2026-02-2618:001 reply People do! But you have to sit there and buzz your lips to make a trumpet make sound, but for a guitar you just have to shake the strings. And the sound coming from the amp will do this shaking, completing the feedback loop. So it's mostly portable stringed instruments that get this treatment. There are some violin players that play with feedback effects. I hear Jon Rose is one but I am not familiar with his music. Folks like Jean Luc Ponty and Jerry Goodman make ample use of guitar pedal effects in their violin. And there's a YouTuber out there who plays with them on her harp.
By WalterBright 2026-02-277:56 There are ways a trumpet could be modified to accept feedback.
By WalterBright 2026-02-277:46 P.S. I learned to play a trumpet when I was a kid. I wasn't any good at it, but I do know how it works!
By jawilson2 2026-02-2620:32 Early 70s Miles Davis did that on his fusion albums and concerts. Fuzz, wah pedal, etc.
> Electric guitars attack hard, decay fast, and don’t sustain like bowed strings or organs.
Since the 1980s, we have had the "Sustainiac": an active circuit installed in the electric guitar along with a "reverse pickup" which is energized in order to excite vibration in the strings.
With this device, at the flip of a switch, you get indefinite sustain on any note on the neck, at any volume, distortion or not --- even if the electric guitar is not plugged into an amplifier at all, and just heard acoustically.
The best implementations of this have a three way harmonic switch. You can choose between excite the fretted (or open) note itself (fundamenta a.k.a first harmonic), an octave above it (second harmonic) or a higher harmonic still.
You can be sustaning the given note, and then at the flip of a switch, it will fade over to the higher harmonic.
YouTube videos of this in action are worth checking out.
Here is one:
By kranner 2026-02-262:22 If you don't want to or can't install a Sustainiac pickup, you can get a much cheaper handheld one-string "E-Bow" that does the same thing. It's not as easy to use as a Sustainiac and you can't also be playing with the whammy bar unlike with a Sustainiac, but you can get it to do tricks a Sustainiac can't do: see the "spiccato" section in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0V3pzxma-8
I've also managed to make an E-Bow work with a steel-string acoustic guitar (but only on one string IIRC).
By WalterBright 2026-02-2617:16 [Nigel Tufnel is showing Marty DiBergi one of his favorite guitars]
Nigel Tufnel: The sustain, listen to it. Marty DiBergi: I don't hear anything. Nigel Tufnel: Well you would though, if it were playing.
By dwd 2026-02-265:18 Ed O'Brien from Radiohead worked with Fender to develop a Strat with a Fernandes Sustainer.
https://au.fender.com/products/fender-eob-sustainer-stratoca...
You might enjoy this video. He really goes deep into using the guitar to create textures and emotions. He talks about the Edge (U2) and his Infinite Guitar and that he actually calling Michael Brook to see if he could get one. Eventually Fender did a custom build on his Clapton Strat which became the Fender EOB Sustainer.
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 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.
> Isn't Nagle usually introduced in a networking class typically taken by CS (non-CE/EE) undergrads
Networking, OS, and Distributed Systems is increasingly treated as CompE or even EE nowadays in the US.
> Just because EEs are exposed...
That's the thing - I truly do not believe that EE and CS should be decoupled, and I believe ECE as a stopgap is doing a disservice to the talent pipeline we need for my verticals to remain in the US, especially when comparing target American CS and EECS programs to peer CEE, Indian, and Israeli CS programs [0].
There is no reason that a CS major should not be required to take a summary circuits, DSP, computer architecture, and OS fundamentals course when this is the norm in most CS programs abroad. Additionally, I do not see any reason for EEs and ECEs to not take Algorithms, Data Structures, and Compilers as well.
> 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
Mind you, I'm primarily in Cybersecurity, AI/ML infra, DefenseTech, and DeepTech adjacent spaces - basically, anything aligned with the "American Dynamism" or Cyberstarts thesis.
From what I've seen, the most successful founders are those who are able to adeptly reason and problem solve, but are also able to communicate to technical buyers because you are selling a technical product where those people make the decision.
Just because an approach isn't useful today doesn't necessarily imply it isn't in the future and being exposed to those kinds of knowledge and foundational principles makes it easier for one to evaluate and reason through problem spaces that are similar but not necessarily the same - for example, going to the Nagle's example - this was a bog standard networking concept that has now become critical in foundation model training because interconnect performance is a critical problem which can impact margins.
A lot of foundational knowledge is useful no matter what, and is why we fund founders and hire talent at competitive salaries.
I know multiple people who went to CMU who dropped out of CS to CE because they couldn't handle the rigor of the OS fundamentals course required for the CS major, as the OS course where you had to implement large parts of a kernel was required for CS, but not for CE.
Yes, you need solid fundamentals. I am saying CE/EE is not where you get them unless you actually are designing circuits. If you're doing the hard tech like you're describing, take the more academically rigorous program of CS instead of the easy CE/EE program where you learn irrelevant skills like circuit layout (that is now done by an AI anyway!) rather than very relevant skills like OS and networking, and algorithms which is not required by EE.
By alephnerd 2026-02-273:54 I agree with that!
The issue is most CS programs in the US don't require a 15-410 style class anymore, or removed much of the more complex content within it.
There's a reason why a CS@CMU degree and a handful of other similar programs that are its peers are well regarded and continue to attract early career recruiters.
That said, I do still feel that the EE/CE/CS shouldn't be treated as different majors and should instead be treated as tracks within the same degree (yes ik what I'm describing is EECS but it ain't wrong), but that shouldn't distract from your overarching point which hits the nail on the head.
By esafak 2026-02-2521:35 Muon is much more sophisticated than Newton's method. Neural networks have started to borrow techniques from statistical mechanics, and various branches of maths like invariant theory that were previously rarely used in engineering. CS is not dumbing down; its needs and focus are changing.
I've never needed or benefited from most of the EE curriculum. There is an opportunity cost in learning things you don't need.
By SJC_Hacker 2026-02-268:10 I guess it depends on where you went. I was a CS student at Virginia Tech in the late 90s. The CS department wasn't even in the engineering school. We did have to take computer architechture which was the only courses other than math/physics we had in common with EE/CE
I know at MIT it was (and I think still is) one major - EECS, and students had substantial latitude on how much they wanted to concentrate into hardware or software at least after the intro courses.
By JambalayaJimbo 2026-02-2522:41 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.
