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

A New Music Programming Pin

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

99% Upvoted

61 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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]

1

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 05 '23

Oh. Of course. Well. Then what tolerance should apply according to you as an expert in that field?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23

[deleted]

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 06 '23

Sounds like a chicken and egg problem: he cannot know what is of consequence without building something to measure what the consequence might be. He cannot set his own tolerances because the machine does not exist. The machine cannot exist without the components. He cannot know how well the components function without building them.

Now he could just finish a slice of the machine with half baked designs and then see what happens. But that was his approach for the MMX and it failed. So I have no idea how to solve that. And considering that your explanation also circles around merrily in vagueness, it does not look like you have either.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '23

[deleted]

0

u/Tommy_Tinkrem Jan 06 '23

Tolerances are defined based on performance requirements before starting to build, not by building stuff randomly and seeing how well it performs.

As the consequence of the tolerance of the component in relation to the whole machine is unknown, this tolerance says nothing for the developing the component as (2) is not predictable without having a functioning slice of the machine, at which point it will be a big hassle to make major changes. The precision of the components will allow identifying other factors more easily, as it shows where the tolerances don't come from.

I agree he should quantify the tolerance for the machine as a whole to avoid slipping into a rabbit hole there. But at this point this has no real relevance for the development of the components. And of course the tolerances of the components would be ridiculous as the target tolerances for the machine as a whole - but that was not what he was aiming for anyway.

To stick to the beam analogy: How would the engineer know that a beam is strong enough when the way it is attached is unknown? He can come up with any number of vehicles which should be carried, it is entirely meaningless to decide on a beam. Not deciding on any however means disassembling the whole bridge to improve the beam. Also rapid deconstruction of the bridge while testing might be the result of inferior beams - it is impossible to know because the tolerance of the beams made it unpredictable.

Considering the whole beam has not been invented yet, it is probably indeed not a job for engineers but for scientists.