3 HN users recommended this demo3 months2024–2026score 3
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
Recommended as a systematic, surprising experiment, often cited in audio and gear-obsession threads.
Guitarist Jim Lill spends a year testing where guitar amplifier tone comes from, swapping tubes, rectifiers and bias types. He finds that much of it can be reproduced with EQ and distortion in different orders.
“check out this guy who ran a much more systematic set of experiments” (HN, 2026)
Jim Lill has a video testing amp tone: [this video] It's almost entirely EQ and distortion, applied in various orders (the exact signal chain matters, because EQ after distortion sounds different than distortion after EQ). By getting this right you can simulate any tube amp tone with solid state to a high degree of accuracy.
Tests amp tone, showing it is mostly EQ and distortion.
I'm convinced that at least 90% of "analog sound" can be simulated by taking the ideal block diagram and replacing every link with a parametric EQ->waveshaper->parametric EQ chain. Configuring those added components correctly is left as an exercise for the reader. Jim Lill's video on guitar amp tone is an interesting demonstration. Hear how close he gets to the original with an even simpler combination of EQ and distortion: [this video]
Demonstrates close amp emulation with simple EQ and distortion.
If this is appealing to you, check out this guy who ran a much more systematic set of experiments on even more sacred and sensitive targets: Tested: Where Does The Tone Come From In An Electric Guitar? [link] Tested: Where Does The Tone Come From In A Guitar Amplifier? [this video]
Systematic experiments on where guitar and amp tone come from.
I just discovered GAS therapy [0], as there was some controversy about the OP-1 pricing (also from Teenage Engineering). To summarize both sides, software is pretty cheap and limitless. Device are limited which can spark creativity by constraints, their tactile form factor feel great, and their portable nature can be a great advantage. However, there are other arguments that typically revolve around how "software cannot replicate vintage sounds" where the holy wars really begin. Nobody has ever proven that, but the myth endures. Recently enough [1] showed all that basically with an eq, a compressor and a distortion you can reproduce any vintage amp sound, you just need to know how it deviates from a flat sound response. How expensive the vintage or high-end hardware is might be a deterrent for some but a very attractive proposition for others. [0] [link] [1] [this video]
Shows EQ and distortion reproduce vintage amp tone.
Love his series, but you really have to keep in mind that his testing methodology is "reductionist": a microphone's quality can't just be distilled to its EQ response. Phase, transient response, clipping, etc. are also part of the equation. edit: My "case in point" moment is Jim's (excellent!) DIY amp section in this video: [this video] . Its EQ indeed sounds like the big names, but I'm sure you'll also notice how its dynamics also sound so thin. That's likely because solid state clipping != (saggy) tube overdrive.
DIY amp section matches EQ but dynamics sound thin.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
6 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more