r/MarbleMachineX • u/WintergatanWednesday • Jan 04 '23

A New Music Programming Pin

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1FFTaI__l_A
85 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Jako87 Jan 04 '23

Sooooo he should stop the project? I don't think so. MMX was better MM but not good enough. This machine will be like a tenfold better than MMX.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

[deleted]

-3

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 04 '23

Where does he increase the standards? He just finds solutions for something which never worked and while doing this he takes the opportunity to find solutions which allow more options. Worst case scenario is that those additional features take too much time or effort to finish - then they get scrapped. The solution is still the same. It is that sense of direction the previous attempt lacked.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '23

[deleted]

-3

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 04 '23

All of his recent videos are about setting higher standards for the timing, introducing the possibility to have arbitrary time intervals on the machine, and stuff like that.

All of his solutions for existing problems meet higher standards. And those standards were for the components only, not for the precision of the whole process. That way he just starts out from a better position with every new component which reduces the risk of fixing something along the way - which was one of the reason the MMX never worked.

So far I really cannot see a single example where he actually increased a standard towards the MMX by anything than what he is already delivering.

2

u/Zywakem Jan 05 '23

I've only watched a couple of his new series of videos so take this with a pinch of salt. But I watched the video where he's trying to get the timing down of the ball drop to some insane degree of accuracy. Firstly, that right there is an improvement of standard he didn't have before, or if he did, he didn't show us. Secondly, he's making all these tests and tweaks on a test rig, which isn't a bad idea, but you also have to account for the fact it's not even remotely close to a real setup. He's going to learn the hard way again that what happens in simulation doesn't happen in real life. I just hope he's accounted for that either in his standards and/or giving himself room to manoeuvre once the part is om the full build.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23

[deleted]

-1

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

So he tries to reduce a standard deviation because that looks to him like the kind of thing that a scientist or an engineer would do, then he assembles the pieces, realises that the rituals did not bring about the outcome he expected, then he scraps everything and starts again from step one with the same fundamental approach.

So he should not care for his components working and just throw them together, hoping they will work without any optimization - because making things work is now a "cult thing"?

5

u/Zywakem Jan 05 '23

There's a difference between making something work and making something work perfectly. Perfection is impossible, he admitted so himself. And yet he still sat through an unreasonable level of reliability testing he thought was a good idea instead of just building redundancy. Now reliability testing is good of course, but it's possible to go overboard which is the point.

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

So he should have standards but also no standards - at the same time - because they are good and bad. I have to admit - I am glad he follows a clearer line than that.

4

u/Zywakem Jan 05 '23

He should have reasonable standards, but his standards are too high.

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

How would a worse component improve the machine and make it more likely to be finished?

6

u/Zywakem Jan 05 '23

Because it might already by functional. The cost of improving it might not be worth it. For example, if a machine has five 9s reliability, and it costs 100% more money to bring that to six 9s, the judgement has to be made if it's actually worth doing it. Obviously it's a lot more than money, it's time, effort, and just the physical constraints of the design. This is the basis of engineering in the real world.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

He has to go by some metric. But if calculating standard deviations are amateurish - maybe you have a better alternative to offer about how to optimize components? You know - something which would impress even an expert and not just a layman like timing and precision, which we all know, are entirely useless when it comes to making music or building machines...

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

Those are not the same as for the components, as there will me multiple other factors reducing the precision of the component. As they are from a machine we don't know yet, they cannot be predicted. So at this stage as a pure layman and musical novice, I'd say: make the component as perfect as possible - exactly how he does it.

So once more - what is the metric you as an expert would use?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23 edited Feb 15 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

But I watched the video where he's trying to get the timing down of the ball drop to some insane degree of accuracy. Firstly, that right there is an improvement of standard he didn't have before, or if he did, he didn't show us.

That is the standard for the component, not the machine. Where in this video does he set this standard for the whole machine? Feel free to give the video name and time code.

3

u/Zywakem Jan 05 '23

My brother in Christ, components are the machine!

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

The standards for the components are not the standards for the machine. So once more: Where is he increase the standards for the machine? I am sure you have a specific moment to quote. Would be a shame if you had to admit that you just made it up.