How does output voltage of an electric guitar work?

[Xenon02]

Distortion is non-linear. The old frequencies are still there, but more frequencies appear as harmonics of the inputs, plus sum and difference frequencies.

Linear means that the output follows the input, with a scale factor only.
Linear means there is no distortion and no new frequency terms created.

So it means that if Output is 0.6V then Input is "0.6" Wave vibration amplitude as I understand it cannot be "1.2" or any other value it must be "0.6" because it follows the output value in voltage. Although you've said about scale factor so.

About distortion good to know that old frequencies are still there, good to know.

PS.
Because the pickup does not reduce the amplitude of the input so there is no scale factor ? It must be 0.6V output = "0.6" Wave vibration input ????? Because when I showed the orange one with scaled version of the black signal or rather reduced. Then it was incorrect.

Did I understand it correctly ? Because It cannot be reduced as I know and that's how I interpreted the scale factor. Or rather pickups has the same scale factor or it changes everytime and it is not that easy as I thought. Dunno. I just gave an arbitrary example.

 

[Averagesupernova]

@Xenon02 concerning your diagram in post #69. What is that supposed to mean? You have sound waves going into the mic, sound waves coming out of the speaker, and electrical signals in between. So what? Where is the voltage on the input as well as the output of the transducers? There is none.
-
You need to do as I said setting up an experiment with a guitar. View the signals in a spectral display using audacity.

 

[Baluncore]

It must be 0.6V output = "0.6" Wave vibration input ?????

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
– Leo Tolstoy. 1894.

 

[Xenon02]

@Xenon02 concerning your diagram in post #69. What is that supposed to mean? You have sound waves going into the mic, sound waves coming out of the speaker, and electrical signals in between. So what? Where is the voltage on the input as well as the output of the transducers? There is none.
-
You need to do as I said setting up an experiment with a guitar. View the signals in a spectral display using audacity.

Dunno.

I imagined it like that :

The whole signal is scaled, like you have the high input and it's is just scaled by the pickup. The shape and everything is the same just scaled down by the pickup.

The scale factor is unknown if it's random or what but that's how I can somehow logically understand how the input is scaled in the output.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
– Leo Tolstoy. 1894.

Again I apologize for me ;> If what I said is somehow correct then there is only one thing and I am done ... that's how lineary I see it in the picture or rather how the pickup scales the input if it indeed scales. It scales the final result of the input so.

 

[sophiecentaur]

. I'm a bit of a perfectionist

Which bit? Is it the bit that uses the wrong terminology? The effect that you are looking at is not 'interference'; it simple vector addition of signals at one location. To a first approximation, the output is the simple addition of the values of each of the signals involved.

To be honest, though. Perfect linearity of the pickup would depend on the magnetic field being uniform all over the flux gap so that it would be the same for all displacements of the string. Also, induced emf would probably be proportional to the string velocity in some pickups (as with some phono cartridges). I believe that the induced emf in the coil could be due to the change in the magnetic reluctance path as the string changes position. But now we're further down that rabbit hole and wasting quite a lot of our time down there. ;-)

First things first; learn about amplifiers first (and how to build them) .Learn about signal level handling and the problems of linearising amplifiers. There are a million and one IC audio amplifiers for small signals. Plenty of fun to be had there without bothering about the guitar pickup part of the exercise.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Dunno.

I imagined it like that :

Oh you can't be serious. Something is the way you think it is because you imagined it that way?

 

[Xenon02]

Oh you can't be serious. Something is the way you think it is because you imagined it that way?

I don't know, I read it is linear so I tried to show an example.
Linear means that the output follows the input, with a scale factor only.
Linear means there is no distortion and no new frequency terms created.

So no distortions, no new frequencies, Input has the same shape as the output only the scale is different because maybe pickup has it's own scale factor ... I don't know. Just making conclusion from what I have.
I don't know how to tell you that I just thought of it like that or pictured it like that. That's why I said if it's something like that ... Did I say "I imagined it like that so it is that and there is no way it is wrong". I just followed what was written and made an example ...

I also followed that the pickup has some max value on the output because someone wrote about it I didn't get it out of nowhere. So probably (I don't know for sure), the input isn't limitless and has it's max value like pickup that cannot exceed, and the pickup factor just reduces the whole signal and that's it ... I don't know if there is something like pickup factor that is scaling the input value. I just pictured it like that from the quote :

Linear means that the output follows the input, with a scale factor only.

So Output = Input with a factor so like Output = Input * Factor.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I don't know, I read it is linear so I tried to show an example.
Linear means that the output follows the input, with a scale factor only.
Linear means there is no distortion and no new frequency terms created.

So no distortions, no new frequencies, Input has the same shape as the output only the scale is different because maybe pickup has it's own scale factor ... I don't know. Just making conclusion from what I have.
I don't know how to tell you that I just thought of it like that or pictured it like that. That's why I said if it's something like that ... Did I say "I imagined it like that so it is that and there is no way it is wrong". I just followed what was written and made an example ...

I also followed that the pickup has some max value on the output because someone wrote about it I didn't get it out of nowhere. So probably (I don't know for sure), the input isn't limitless and has it's max value like pickup that cannot exceed, and the pickup factor just reduces the whole signal and that's it ... I don't know if there is something like pickup factor that is scaling the input value. I just pictured it like that from the quote :

Linear means that the output follows the input, with a scale factor only.

So Output = Input with a factor so like Output = Input * Factor.

That really doesn't get to the crux of the issue.
-
The issue by my observations are:
You cannot measure input voltage on a guitar pickup. You seem to imply that the input is a known constant and that is not something that is easily done.
-
The other issue is you seem to believe it is impossible for a guitar pickup to output more than a volt. This is also false. I don't know the standards and it may be common practice attempt to keep the signal output below a volt.

 

[Xenon02]

The issue by my observations are:
You cannot measure input voltage on a guitar pickup. You seem to imply that the input is a known constant and that is not something that is easily done.

I implied that the Input is a vibration signal not an input voltage. The pickup picks the vibrations so it must be something physical, the strings goes up and down in a specific frequency like a sinewave, so I thought the sinwave or waveform is the input of the pickup not voltage. That's why I was using "2" and not 2V as an input value, while output I clearly used Volts as a unit.

So it's something random ? Pickup will make it into voltage no matter the input amplitude value ?

Or perhaps indeed the input signal is unmeasurable because this is only vibration, and there is no input signal in the pickup. So the videos I saw where just a myth a bit, or I didn't understand something.
If that's what you've tried to tell me then okey the vibration isn't the signal input or rather it does not create sinus vibrating signal, just only the change in magnetic field, and the pickup just makes an output. So no input sinus I guess. That's what I was supposed to understand ?

The other issue is you seem to believe it is impossible for a guitar pickup to output more than a volt. This is also false. I don't know the standards and it may be common practice attempt to keep the signal output below a volt.

If it's false ok, I'll try to find more info about it.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So it's something random ? Pickup will make it into voltage no matter the input amplitude value ?

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said that.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Or perhaps indeed the input signal is unmeasurable because this is only vibration, and there is no input signal in the pickup.

I never said it was unmeasurable. I said it is difficult to measure.
-
A true accurate definition of what the input is needs to include the distance the string is moving at the pickup. Needs to be uniform in distance to the pickup compared to all strings. Also, several tests need to be done with different tensions with the same string. In other words, different frequencies using the same thickness string. Also I would like to see comparisons between different parts of the pickup with the same string and pitch. Without these things nailed down you really only know that a vibrating string makes a signal come out of the pickup.

 

[Xenon02]

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said that.

I also have not said that the input is in voltage ;>
I was deducing but I did it incorrectly my bad here sorry.

A true accurate definition of what the input is needs to include the distance the string is moving at the pickup. Needs to be uniform in distance to the pickup compared to all strings. Also, several tests need to be done with different tensions with the same string. In other words, different frequencies using the same thickness string. Also I would like to see comparisons between different parts of the pickup with the same string and pitch. Without these things nailed down you really only know that a vibrating string makes a signal come out of the pickup.

So it's better to just assume that I have some output voltage and be happy with it then yes ? And not think about input signal ? It just works I guess. Although these vibrations are interesting in which I'll just pass I guess

Okey then last thing then, usually the electric signal of a chord/single string etc do not exceed 1V, I do not mean now that pickup max voltage output is 1V I just say now that usually the output voltage is usually 1V, so how 6 strings with amplitude 0.8V it's peak is equal also 0.8V and not higher ? It is now linear adding all sinewaves right all sinewaves from all 6 strings together. And the sum is 0.8V like single string amplitude ?
I used superposition and I just saw that different frequencies will always result in one moment where all peaks add up. So it is weird though that it stays only in 0.8V the sum of all 6 strings which individually are 0.8V as well.

 

[Averagesupernova]

By deducing or whatever, you are implying that all tones are picked up the same. We have covered this. It is my suspicion that such is not the case. The higher pitched strings will not swing as far in their oscillation. They swing faster but cover less distance. So, we don't really know. However, in reading one of your links I did see that it was common for guitar amps to have a better high end response which implies the low tones generally come out of the guitar with a higher amplitude. This response of the amp tends to flatten the response. More than once I have wished for the opportunity to delve into the guts of a guitar amp. So far, no one has come to me with an amp problem.

 

[Baluncore]

The higher pitched strings will not swing as far in their oscillation. They swing faster but cover less distance.

Yes. The induced voltage is proportional to the rate the magnetic field cuts the PU coil, which is greatest at the high-frequency end of the octave, so compensates.

The rate that the field cuts the PU coil, is greater for the lower-amplitude higher-harmonics, in the three or so octaves above the string's fundamental at that time.

 

[Drakkith]

Okey then last thing then, usually the electric signal of a chord/single string etc do not exceed 1V, I do not mean now that pickup max voltage output is 1V I just say now that usually the output voltage is usually 1V, so how 6 strings with amplitude 0.8V it's peak is equal also 0.8V and not higher ?

Is this actual data or are you making it up?

 

[Xenon02]

By deducing or whatever, you are implying that all tones are picked up the same. We have covered this. It is my suspicion that such is not the case. The higher pitched strings will not swing as far in their oscillation. They swing faster but cover less distance. So, we don't really know. However, in reading one of your links I did see that it was common for guitar amps to have a better high end response which implies the low tones generally come out of the guitar with a higher amplitude. This response of the amp tends to flatten the response. More than once I have wished for the opportunity to delve into the guts of a guitar amp. So far, no one has come to me with an amp problem.

Wait a sec so in the link from post#1 the output voltage is not measure from pickup ?

But if still the pickup makes higher amplitudę for the bridge part then again high amplitude adds up, the rule of superposition and so applied and all sounds from 6 strings have different frequencies so still it contradicts with the fact that there must be high peak and there is not. What is the flaw of superposition here ? In fact it was confirmed here that output signal I can use superposition on output signal. Because adding Individual signals from E1 and E2 will look the same as if E1+E2 already where played at the same time. So the sum of individual is equal to the voltage output.

Is this actual data or are you making it up?

From first link in post#1 I took as a reference E1 and E2 but the chor consists of 6 strings while here I had E1 and E2. But seeing that the output is high because 0.8V or a bit smaller like 0.6V then I deduced that E3 ... E6 of that chor is also high so adding all 6 up for chor should result in high peak although in the article it says it is max 0.8V which doesn't make sense to me, knowing the superposition or the fact that peak values add up at some point because all signals have different frequencies

 

[Averagesupernova]

I don't know where the voltage is taken in the link in post #1. However, the quote below comes from that link.

It's also easy to see why most guitar amps have a significant amount of treble boost - it's necessary because the output of the higher strings is almost always lower than expected.

 

[Xenon02]

I don't know where the voltage is taken in the link in post #1. However, the quote below comes from that link.

Here it says at the top pickup voltage and not amp voltage so. E1 In Samick TV is 800mV peak, E2 is 200mV peak so the rest of the strings have smaller amplitude ?

Still the sum of E1 and E1 should give at some point 1V looking at this graph I've made

Why it must ? No matter what phase shift I've applied it always had this one peak the sum of all peaks.

So why is it that the chord is 0.85 V ? Why the sum is different from what I add here or is my superposition incorrect if so there is my geogebra link in first post, I would be glad to see how it should look like

 

[Drakkith]

From first link in post#1

Stop assuming the data in that article is accurate. It isn't, the author of the article said so themselves, more than once, and I already touched on this in a previous post. You can see that the data is wildly different between two different guitars and doesn't even following a similar pattern, making anything except the broadest of statements about the data unreliable.

Still the sum of E1 and E1 should give at some point 1V looking at this graph I've made

The voltages listed are RMS voltages, That means it's an average, so any peaks have been averaged out.

 

[Xenon02]

The voltages listed are RMS voltages, That means it's an average, so any peaks have been averaged out.

RMS and peak voltage is listed. In the bracket (). It's even written Average RMS (Peak)

The author was repeating these measure and they were similar, of course not accurate but very similar. Good point of reference.

So my calculations where conflicting, peaks should add up at some point so E1 + E2 = 1V, the chord is 0.8V which doesn't make sense because the chord consist of E1 = 0.8V and E2 of 0.2V

Their peaks must add up because of different frequencies so peaks must meet and because of superposition.

Any answer why superposition didn't work ? Logically E1+E2 = 1V peak, and there are 4 more strings so the peak should be bigger than >1V but it is 0.8V nonsense. Superposition didn 't work, logic behind it is illogical

 

[Drakkith]

RMS and peak voltage is listed. In the bracket (). It's even written Average RMS (Peak)

Ah, so it is. My mistake.

So my calculations where conflicting, peaks should add up at some point so E1 + E2 = 1V, the chord is 0.8V which doesn't make sense because the chord consist of E1 = 0.8V and E2 of 0.2V

How hard did the author strike the strings for each note and then the chord?

 

[Xenon02]

How hard did the author strike the strings for each note and then the chord?

That's a good point. Maybe you are right about that part that striking the chord results in smaller amplitude of each string. The question is, is it that radically reduced ? So that E1 from 0.8V will be smaller like 0.4V or 0.5V so that the rest strings will have like 0.1V

Although how much the amplitude changes. Author said he was striking them the same way repeatedly. So I assumed that E1 is equal 0.8V. But isn't the amplitude more dependent on the frequency like it was said before ? Like bridge E1 was 0.8V and E1 on neck is 0.45 V because of different frequencies than how hard it was stroke.

So let's say the chord that consist of E1 is 0.8V then the chord peak doesn't have any sense. If E1 on the bridge changes drastically from 0.8V to 0.6 V then it might be possible to have output of 0.8V when the rest of the strings have less than 0.1V if it makes any sense.

But yea did the E1 amplitude changed then the author played chord ? Single E1 is 0.8V then what is the value of E1 in chord of the bridge part ?

Interesting

 

[Drakkith]

That's a good point. Maybe you are right about that part that striking the chord results in smaller amplitude of each string.

My point is that the results in the article are from an almost entirely uncontrolled experiment. You would need to reliably strike the strings the same way each time to get an accurate comparison between the notes and chords. That's just not going to happen by hand. Amplitude, strike location, and strike direction will all vary with each strike by hand. Sometimes insignificantly, sometimes significantly. So trying to draw any conclusions from these numbers is problematic.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What is the flaw of superposition here ?

Superposition has no 'flaws' it's how you think of it and how you try to apply the principle to a particular situation. You have to distinguish between theory and practical results. As with money and heating the house, if you get an apparent disagreement then there's something you forgot.
I can't understand why you appear to be obsessed with what you see as anomalous behaviour. Precise values for pickup sensitivity are really not an issue, assuming you get enough out of it for your amp system. What is much more important is the relative sensitivity of the pickup to all six strings, As I mentioned before, the material and thickness of each string will affect this and many pickups have adjusting screws in an attempt to get balance. It's nigh on impossible to 'strum' all strings to achieve perfect balance.

You also keep talking in terms of 'sine waves' but the waveforms due to each string are far from sinusoidal - particularly on attack. The resultant voltage is the sum of those waveforms and not the sum of just six sine waves. If you want sine waves then you have to use a synthesiser.

 

[Averagesupernova]

@Xenon has it occurred to you to question why RMS and peak do not differ by a factor of 1.414 in the link in post #1. Does that not clue you in that the signal from each string is not a sine wave? You are missing so many things here and just choose to ignore what you don't want to see.

 

[sophiecentaur]

So let's say the chord that consist of E1 is 0.8V then the chord peak doesn't have any sense. If E1 on the bridge changes drastically from 0.8V to 0.6 V then it might be possible to have output of 0.8V when the rest of the strings have less than 0.1V if it makes any sense.

Actually, this comment makes 'no sense' because you refuse to change your opinion (and it's not a matter of personal opinion). The value of the voltage varies in time and is equal to the sum of all the instantaneous volts from the six strings. Statistically, they will add up to a high instantaneous value once in a while. At that time, there may be clipping / cracking due to the dynamic range of the amplification channel.

I have to ask whether you are just waiting for someone on PF to say "OK Xenon, you are right and we're all wrong"

 

[Xenon02]

I have to ask whether you are just waiting for someone on PF to say "OK Xenon, you are right and we're all wrong"

No I do not wait for this.
The answers I read seemed to me not to relate to example I tried to give and sources I used, so I kept asking again or the answer to the question was relating to a different part like power I didn't know why it was important.
I also asked to relate to my examples or so because it was a simplified version of what I tried to ask or give my idea how it would look like. But I see that I annoyed most of people here.

And no it is not about the refusal of changing the opinion rather I see couple of answers, which I take those from websites as a point of reference because people there know what they are saying and some part of the information kept repeating but at some examples I've seen seemed to be conflicting to the theory that was repeating.

@Xenon has it occurred to you to question why RMS and peak do not differ by a factor of 1.414 in the link in post #1. Does that not clue you in that the signal from each string is not a sine wave? You are missing so many things here and just choose to ignore what you don't want to see.

Yes each string is not a sine wave, sorry for this part, but still the sum of peaks was incorrect. I haven't checked the difference between RMS and peak.
Instead of ignoring I rather expected to relate to my answers like "this diagram doesn't make sense because", "the diagram can look similar but", "the values from the website E1 and E2 vs chord with E1 and E2 sum aren't equal because" "in theory adding peaks like you've said would indeed give 1V but in the picture it is 0.85V because ... " so on and so on, I don't know how to describe it better. But I saw something about something about Power which I didn't know what it has to the amplitude of the voltage when I strike the string, because it is about vibration or when I gave diagram I had an answer like where is the math, in which I used the values from the website, or why do peaks must exceed 1V, or my geogebra example where I proved that no matter the phase shift the sum of all signals their peak must sum at some point : https://www.geogebra.org/graphing/merap3ws. I also expected some answers like "this part is correct but this not of your post" etc.

If it's alot then I am sorry for asking much.

Statistically, they will add up to a high instantaneous value once in a while. At that time, there may be clipping / cracking due to the dynamic range of the amplification channel.

Perhaps they clip, I thought it does not because playing the chord or something the same time usually or practically sounded the same without a bit of distortion. But I can imagine it. So what I said about that the sum will result in high peak which is the sum of all peaks of the sounds once in a while so my geogebra thing wasn't incorrect as I assume.

My point is that the results in the article are from an almost entirely uncontrolled experiment. You would need to reliably strike the strings the same way each time to get an accurate comparison between the notes and chords. That's just not going to happen by hand. Amplitude, strike location, and strike direction will all vary with each strike by hand. Sometimes insignificantly, sometimes significantly. So trying to draw any conclusions from these numbers is problematic.

Makes sense, though it is possible that from 0.8V E1 to reduce drastically when E1 is in chord so that the max is 0.85V ? Hence the E1 when is in chord must reduce from 0.8V to smaller like 0.6V so that the rest of the strings will add up if their amplitude is smaller than 0.1V. I guess ? If some part what I said makes sense then let me know.

 

[Averagesupernova]

All this discussion and have yet to hook a guitar up to a laptop and look at some signals in audacity or something similar. There is only so much this thread will take until you come with better info than a bunch of stuff collected from the web and wrong assumptions made by you. Geogebra appears to be a website that can add some sine waves. Big deal. As said before that can be done on your favorite spreadsheet. It's simple addition. How multiple strings react with each other in the field of the sensor generating signals that are not pure sine waves is reality.

 

[Xenon02]

All this discussion and have yet to hook a guitar up to a laptop and look at some signals in audacity or something similar. There is only so much this thread will take until you come with better info than a bunch of stuff collected from the web and wrong assumptions made by you. Geogebra appears to be a website that can add some sine waves. Big deal. As said before that can be done on your favorite spreadsheet. It's simple addition. How multiple strings react with each other in the field of the sensor generating signals that are not pure sine waves is reality.

Pure sin waves or not, even if a string generates non sin wave signal which will for sure, that waveform is constructed with a bunch of sinwaves, and my geogebra was only supposed to prove that the sum of all signals there is one moment that the peaks adds up no matter what ... That's all. But I see some irony from you.

So that's why this question came :

Makes sense, though it is possible that from 0.8V E1 to reduce drastically when E1 is in chord so that the max is 0.85V ? Hence the E1 when is in chord must reduce from 0.8V to smaller like 0.6V so that the rest of the strings will add up if their amplitude is smaller than 0.1V. I guess ? If some part what I said makes sense then let me know.

I just wondered if the chord could just make the E1 reduced from 0.8V to smaller like 0.6V, It's just a guess of why the chord could have the same value as single E1 sound. And to add to this I proved before and it was said that all the peaks should add up at some point so peak should be bigger and it wasn't. So I just thought

"hmmm then maybe if single E1 was 0.8V, E2 was 0.2V and chord which consist of E1 and E2 has 0.85V something doesn't add up, maybe E1 amplitude as well as E2 etc are reduced when played at the same time ??? because now they interact with each other or something if so then can E1 from single strike 0.8V can now be smaller like 0.6V or smaller because other strings are now vibrating as well"

Process of thinking of what other people said here ...

 

[sophiecentaur]

The answers I read seemed to me not to relate to example I tried to give and sources I used, so I kept asking again or the answer to the question was relating to a different part like power I didn't know why it was important.

You have, as I mentioned above, asked a question that really doesn't mean a lot. You are trying to run this process on your own terms, leaping in, half way through without taking on board the basics. Why do you think the answers you've been getting are not satisfying you? It's because you are trying to run before you can walk. You should try some other, very fundamental sources, like the basics of signals that can be found in a decent EE text book. Not the style of many, these days, I know; there are a lot of newbies who seem to think that the basics don't count. There are other forums that are chock full of nonsensical ideas about musical signals and processing. Very entertaining but not good sourses for getting a proper understanding.

Perhaps they clip, I thought it does not because playing the chord or something the same time usually or practically sounded the same without a bit of distortion.

You cannot trust your ears by listening to non-critical material. Experienced guitar players can spot things that you would never do, at this stage. Guitars are so far from ideal sound sources that you need to switch to an analysis using more straightforward, theoretical signals.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I just wondered if the chord could just make the E1 reduced from 0.8V to smaller like 0.6V

If you actually did something besides pick stuff from the net that you really don't know what the signal is you would understand this. If you concern yourself with peak without considering RMS in this you will not get very far. Yes, adding a second signal from a different string could reduce the peak of the signal while increasing the RMS voltage.
-
You need to study up on signals and systems to fully understand this. It's apparent that you don't. Yet you think you do.

If the above can be believed as accurate then the fact the RMS is higher with the chord vs E2 and the peak remained unchanged (20 mV to 36 mV RMS and 300 to 300 peak) should have answered your question, yet you asked. So that implies you don't trust the source of this info.
-
It's really difficult to get anything meaningful about the behavior of the pickup just thumbing it. A constant vibration of the string(s) will tell you something. This has to be controlled and the travel of the string measured. This takes patience and a well fixtured setup.

 

[Drakkith]

It's really difficult to get anything meaningful about the behavior of the pickup just thumbing it. A constant vibration of the string(s) will tell you something. This has to be controlled and the travel of the string measured. This takes patience and a well fixtured setup.

Indeed. I've brought this up at least twice now and I would be very surprised if the numbers listed could be reliably replicated when playing by hand.

 

[Xenon02]

If the above can be believed as accurate then the fact the RMS is higher with the chord vs E2 and the peak remained unchanged (20 mV to 36 mV RMS and 300 to 300 peak) should have answered your question, yet you asked. So that implies you don't trust the source of this info.

Aha so indeed I was partly correct that the E2 was reduced because of the chord like you have said here (20mV to 36 mV RMS and peaks are the same 300mV) so the E2 peak had to be reduced then. But yea the RMS changed which I didn't give much thought. Well not always the peak was reduced but I get the idea.

Oke I think now I know what I wanted to know, now I can go back to the stuff that really matters ;>
I know this knowledge might be not useful but now knowing a bit how it looks like, satisfies my reptilian cerebellum.

Of course the source info isn't very accurate like it was said before, still thanks for patience. I'll just go back learn basics I guess ;>

You have, as I mentioned above, asked a question that really doesn't mean a lot. You are trying to run this process on your own terms, leaping in, half way through without taking on board the basics. Why do you think the answers you've been getting are not satisfying you? It's because you are trying to run before you can walk. You should try some other, very fundamental sources, like the basics of signals that can be found in a decent EE text book. Not the style of many, these days, I know; there are a lot of newbies who seem to think that the basics don't count. There are other forums that are chock full of nonsensical ideas about musical signals and processing. Very entertaining but not good sourses for getting a proper understanding

I mean learning from text books won't be something new to me ;>
But I will do what you've said. I've had before lessons about signals etc (hamm windows, white noise etc.), tbh I couldn't understand a thing ;>

So for this discussion I just researched how to analyse output music signals and it was mentioned the superposition. That every weird looking signal can be deconstructed into bunch of sine signals. So I used it in this case after some reading.

Still thanks for the help.

 

[Drakkith]

Aha so indeed I was partly correct that the E2 was reduced because of the chord like you have said here (20mV to 36 mV RMS and peaks are the same 300mV) so the E2 peak had to be reduced then.

I'm not sure that's what Averagesupernova meant.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Aha so indeed I was partly correct

Avoid being complacent about this. You have a long way to go still; as @Drakkith says, you may only 'feel' you are right.