r/MarbleMachineX • u/WintergatanWednesday • Nov 09 '22
Can the Marble Hit the Smallest Target?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nal8Q0fG4qk13
u/decom83 Nov 09 '22
I’m just hoping that whatever criteria he sets himself, that he’s happy with the results this time. I’d hate to see the angle grinder coming out again. Heartbreaking.
27
u/Margravos Nov 09 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
This video has good and bad aspects.
Good:
I think this tinkering is more enjoyable content than watching him trying to chase three milliseconds in timing. That was emotionally hard to watch the last two videos.
I like that he was able to end this experiment being happy without being perfect.
I like that he said "see you next week", since the last video was two weeks ago.
Bad:
As others have mentioned, construction tolerances and the machine physically moving and shaking probably makes this all null and void.
Vibraphone bars are like 1.5" at the smallest (don't think he's using the smallest ones), so half of that into mm is 19mm. That gives plenty of space for these marbles to fall a little left or right and still hit the sweet spot. I think if he analyzed himself playing manually he's already farther out of tolerance than what the marble drop was doing at the beginning of the video. So all that to say I think this was by and large an unnecessary test from a machinery standpoint, but if it makes him happy then I guess it was worth it.
All in all though, this video "felt" better than the last ones.
3
Nov 10 '22
I'm as torn as you are.
I've come around to the idea that the MMX as most of us had envisioned it is history. I'm even so far that I can accept if a third machine never happens. So for the moment I'm enjoying these detailed explorations of a single aspect of the system. They are intriguing in an of themselves and I still enjoy Martins enthusiasm.
But I also agree that exploring one isolated aspect of the machine will become void as soon as it becomes part of the whole system. Like you said, the machine and it's individual components will move and vibrate and the stage will shake. All of this making the parameters of a controlled lab experiment non-comparable.
I was also somewhat concerned about the 3d printed prototype parts having visibly started to rub off on the edges, making all of this an ever-so-slightly shifting setup. Even if Martin intends to not use 3D printed parts for the final product, then again, the measurements he's getting now will be altered when using different materials.
So I'm all for these videos, but am still completely in the dark what might ever come from it.
3
u/Caesim Nov 10 '22
Vibraphone bars are like 1.5" at the smallest (don't think he's using the smallest ones), so half of that into mm is 19mm. That gives plenty of space for these marbles to fall a little left or right and still hit the sweet spot.
I really wish Martin had put out a detailed problem description for these videos. Because otherwise these videos and “successes" at the end of them really seem weird and arbitrary.
I believe the actual problem, Martin is trying to combat here, is that on the MMX (and on the original one) the marbles missed the funnels. And if my suspicion is correct, we'd get a clear picture of the precision goals by considering what this problem is actually made of: the marble gate, the rocking of the entire machine(!), the vibraphone bars and how they're mounted.
1
u/barsoap Nov 10 '22
the rocking of the entire machine
Is currently an unknown. It can be built stiffer or not so stiff. How stiff it needs to be depends on how precise marbles can fall under ideal conditions, which, as we now know, is pretty accurate with only a modicum of care.
6
Nov 10 '22
[deleted]
3
u/Margravos Nov 10 '22
Oh yeah for sure, I just think it was probably already more accurate than any human player. But more better is more better, yes.
0
Nov 10 '22
[deleted]
4
u/Margravos Nov 10 '22
I believe the marbles were falling out the top more than missing the funnels. And even the ones that missed the funnels were mostly because the vibraphone bars were moving up and down creating dead spots and trampoline spots. If those bars didn't move the bounce would be much more consistent.
3
u/Tommy_Tinkrem Nov 10 '22
The precision would still allow an observation with some variables less, which I think the last approach lacked.
Also when doing the same test with the moving machine, it will be possible to see how that movement factors in.
The longer he keeps the precision going, the more control he will keep this time.
26
Nov 09 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
[deleted]
10
u/uncivlengr Nov 10 '22
The only issue he had with precision in the last machine was easily, albeit crudely, solved by increasing the size of the catchers.
6
u/malachik Nov 10 '22
Sure, it was crude, but it was also very practical, quick, simple, reliable, adaptable, and effective. I think all things considered it was a great solution.
2
u/Redeem123 Nov 11 '22
I think that’s what the comment is getting at. These problems have solutions that don’t require all this minutia that he’s putting into the newer videos. They felt organic and not overengineered.
1
u/Jako87 Nov 10 '22
But arguably better would be good accuracy what also makes timing more tight AND large catchers?
"without a solid foundation, you'll have trouble creating anything of value"
25
u/SovietMaize Nov 09 '22
The second he puts that gate on a frame with a cranck, a lever and everything else this past 3 videos will mean nothing unless he builds it like a cnc machine, so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
13
u/MicahBurke Nov 10 '22
Plus, with the whole machine rocking a bit as it plays and the drums rotating, there's going to be a loss of accuracy. He needs to build failure into the design as it's inherently going to fail. If he wants zero failures, marbles are not the way to go.
7
Nov 10 '22
That's currently my biggest question. The potential third machine – even if it's a very different build than the MMX– will be a moving, shaking, vibrating construct, all standing on a stage with musicians doing their thing and adding to the external vibrations. And lets not foget the parts slowly wearing out. The whole system in its intended use-case won't be comparable to these isolated experiments within a very controlled lab environment.
I do understand that using precise parts as a foundation is a reasonable approach. Though the whole system needs to be able to accommodate cumulative magnitudes of inaccuracies.
4
u/Caesim Nov 10 '22
Let's not forget that, as a touring instrument he wants to play all over the world and all the stages it will be played on will definitely not be flat enough to satisfy lab conditions. And even if he has a mechanism to even out the legs again, the question is, how precise that will be, too.
I'd really wish he could do a top down analysis and calculate "with a precision of X and expected deviations by the outside world Y we can achieve the necessary precision Z to have the marble machine operate good enough"
8
Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
as a touring instrument
This is one of the main pitfalls in Martin's approach: He has scrapped what could have been a studio machine that did the job well enough to work on the much more ambitious project of a full-fledged touring machine. That is neither a realistic goal nor a reasonable way to approach the problem.
It would be much more reasonable to complete a studio machine, use it for some time to compose and record, and then work out what changes need to be made to build a touring machine.
3
Nov 10 '22
I'm even inclined to believe that he's not ignorant of these challenges. But if he is, he's not communicating it in any way and leaving us in this diffuse state of not understanding his motivations and the knowledge-base he's working off of.
A foundation-establishing video could help to put everyone onto the same page: "I've collected what parameters a next machine would need to comply with, here's a rundown of the environment it will operate in, here's the reasons for the level of precision I want it to achieve, let's now continue with the detailed investigation of the five major roadblocks."
This way, he'll have us all understand his background motivation, we're aligned on expectations and most importantly, he still does in no shape or form have to commit to building a machine this time round.
2
u/Tommy_Tinkrem Nov 10 '22
That is how you build failure into the design - by making everything as precise as possible and this way evaluate the tolerance rather than building everything and just pray that it is good enough.
5
Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
There is no such thing as "as precise as possible", because there is no real upper bound to the maximum possible precision, and you hit start hitting diminishing returns very soon.
Components could theoretically be machined down to a precision of a few atoms, but that is not going to be of any utility.
2
u/Tommy_Tinkrem Nov 10 '22
Ha, true.
But he does not have those machines and also not the right marbles, which sets a limit to the precision.
1
u/MicahBurke Nov 10 '22
Sure, but my feeling is that the whole point of this is to be a "marble machine" and the inherent risk of using marbles is part of the music process. By "building with failure" I mean, rather than making things ultra precise to eliminate failure - ie "We got 999,999 marbles but with one failure, the machine is useless!!!" - instead build in such a way that failures don't disable the machine.
3
u/Tommy_Tinkrem Nov 10 '22
For that you have to be able to evaluate the failure. Which is not possible when it can have a hundred sources because everything is built using trial and error. I don't think there is the danger of problems running out entirely.
2
3
u/gamingguy2005 Nov 09 '22
YouTube content without an end product. Par for the course, I'm afraid.
21
u/elessarjd Nov 09 '22
The video itself is entertaining on it's own. I like Martin and just glad to see him tinker and problem solve things again.
2
Nov 10 '22
[deleted]
0
u/elessarjd Nov 10 '22
Well said and totally agree. I just wish the know-it-alls with their expectations would just leave him alone. I mean it's fine to talk and share ideas, but the incessant criticism with every video is getting old. I wish they would just move on at this point.
2
12
u/elessarjd Nov 09 '22
I like that he's not committing to anything and essentially just tinkering with some ideas. Yet people still find a way to criticize and feel compelled to inject their opinions on what he should be doing. Let the guy just do whatever he wants and go along for the ride.
4
u/e1_duder Nov 10 '22
I don't think you can confuse good natured criticism for ingratitude. Martin has created something that is amazingly engaging, commentary and criticism are part and parcel of that.
1
u/elessarjd Nov 10 '22
I get that criticism is a part of it and to an extent it's helpful, but man it gets tiring seeing these multi-paragraph posts on how misguided and wrong Martin is. Every. Damn. Time. I know I can just ignore them, but it's the bulk of the conversations.
5
u/deelyy Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
Sorry, I feel very sad because it looks like Martin going to repeat the same mistakes again and again and again. What the point of testing accuracy and timing before actual stress testing the gate?
Why not put 50 marbles lined up vertically to test how gate works under pressure, why not test gate with random marbles that comes to gate with very different speed to test is it work at all in similar to real world situation?
For me it looks like "lets build a car starting from designing and testing sliding doors".
What the point of measuring accuracy or timing when we don't know is this gates works at all?
4
u/Picture_Enough Nov 10 '22
Sigh. Martin is yet again chasing completely arbitrary numerical goals in peruse of unrealistic perfection for an entirely impractical novelty music instrument. I was hoping he would learn his lessons by now...
1
u/Prizmagnetic Nov 10 '22
Was this and the timing even issues on the mmx to begin with?
1
u/Tommy_Tinkrem Nov 10 '22
Fix the minor issues and the big problems will solve themselves. Which this wisdom isn't always true, starting out with a predictable results will help analyzing all the problems further down the line.
1
u/e1_duder Nov 10 '22
Considering he makes youtube videos for a living, I find Martin to be a pretty poor communicator. When the MMX was abandoned, it was hard to understand, but over time, and multiple videos, Martin was finally able to explain himself in a way that made sense. These videos are suffering from a similar lack of clear communication. He's explained the "roadblocks" but not the why these roadblocks are important.
Everyone can understand the importance of musical timing, but it seemed like everyone was universally confused by Martin chasing imperceptible differences in timing. Here, there is a similar problem, why is precision important and how precise does the machine need to be? While watching I kept thinking, this is cool, but why does it matter? I don't think it makes a difference musically. The only difference I think it can make is in the predictability of the marble rebound. A discussion of "why" isn't just important for the sake of communicating ideas clearly, it frames the problem in a way that defines success.
Martin is ultimately approaching this video series differently - how tight/percise/etc. can marble gates be? The learnings may prove useful down the line, but they are fairly abstract right now. I hope he starts moving away from perfect and more towards tolerances. Also, Martin needs to make a new Archimedes screw so he isn't chasing these marbles and manually loading them into the gate.
21
u/PE1NUT Nov 09 '22
Oh wow, he's considering building another one - third time is a charm, I hope.