To me, the BL9s were perfectly in keeping with good design whilst still following function.  Yeah, okay, the top seems a little narrow from the first look, but that is probably because one was used to not having speakers narrow that much at the top. As it stands (literally), it seems well balanced yet still look as if it can produce a firm bottom.

The BL5s are very different speakers to most other speakers, but again, form follows function. Yes, one could argue that those alu-discs are ugly or look out of place if so inclined, but they perform a function, and when it comes to proportions, they are both pretty well designed.

But even if we had come to conclude that the BL5s and BL9s were butt-ugly, that they didn't grow on some on us, that has no bearing on the BS8. They could be exceptional design blunders yet the BS8 could be design heaven. Or vice versa as it were. Each product has to be "examined" on it's own merits. The BS8's own merits involves different size LCD screens to be fitted, and that, it seems, are its downfall when it comes to the design.

Just because a design is made on "contradictions", doesn't mean that anything that clashes is designed well according to the design brief. I linked to a CH37 chair earlier (at the top of this page, I believe), and it too have "contradictions". Contradictions is often used to juxtapose different materials and different parts of a design (round table top, square legs etc., concrete and wood, glass and concrete), but that doesn't mean that any contradiction therefore can be construed as "good design".

I suppose I don't understand the criticism of the various iPod/iPad form factors on top. Of course they look difference, but the essence of this product is a dock. It is designed to have something sitting up there. When an iPod sits on top, the speakers look very large and muscular (which they are, for an iPod dock). When the iPad is docked, it's the only dock where the elements look visually balanced. 

TripEnglish wrote:

I suppose I don't understand the criticism of the various iPod/iPad form factors on top. Of course they look difference, but the essence of this product is a dock. It is designed to have something sitting up there. When an iPod sits on top, the speakers look very large and muscular (which they are, for an iPod dock). When the iPad is docked, it's the only dock where the elements look visually balanced. 

Although I'm not in the market for a BS8 (not using iPod or iPad) I totally agree: the BS8 with iPad really looks very balanced (and almost as good with the iPod.) Nearly all other docks just look like boxes with the iPod stuck on top as an afterthought.

Graham

TripEnglish wrote:

I suppose I don't understand the criticism of the various iPod/iPad form factors on top. Of course they look difference, but the essence of this product is a dock. It is designed to have something sitting up there. When an iPod sits on top, the speakers look very large and muscular (which they are, for an iPod dock). When the iPad is docked, it's the only dock where the elements look visually balanced. 

I won't quote your Jesus facepalm, although it would fit nicely.  How about you tried to argue why it fits so well together - you know, the exact same you ask of the "detractors"?

How do you figure the elements are "visually balanced"?

Speaking of which, you using the logical fallacy, that it is a "dock, so it's designed to have something sitting on top" is really not valid. In fact, it's nonsensical circular logic.

Yes, it's a dock, because it's designed to dock something. And it's designed to have something sitting on top, because that is where the designer put the connector. That doesn't mean that that is the only way to design something that "docks" an iPod - or rather: uses an iPod/iPhone/iPad as a source - nor that it's the best.

And while we're at it, I'd argue that the essense of this thing is the fact that it has speakers and as such is a standalone stereo for your iPod. The way to connect the source is secondary when it comes to the design. 

Electrified wrote:

TripEnglish wrote:

I suppose I don't understand the criticism of the various iPod/iPad form factors on top. Of course they look difference, but the essence of this product is a dock. It is designed to have something sitting up there. When an iPod sits on top, the speakers look very large and muscular (which they are, for an iPod dock). When the iPad is docked, it's the only dock where the elements look visually balanced. 

I won't quote your Jesus facepalm, although it would fit nicely.  How about you tried to argue why it fits so well together - you know, the exact same you ask of the "detractors"?

 

How do you figure the elements are "visually balanced"?

Speaking of which, you using the logical fallacy, that it is a "dock, so it's designed to have something sitting on top" is really not valid. In fact, it's nonsensical circular logic.

Yes, it's a dock, because it's designed to dock something. And it's designed to have something sitting on top, because that is where the designer put the connector. That doesn't mean that that is the only way to design something that "docks" an iPod - or rather: uses an iPod/iPhone/iPad as a source - nor that it's the best.

And while we're at it, I'd argue that the essense of this thing is the fact that it has speakers and as such is a standalone stereo for your iPod. The way to connect the source is secondary when it comes to the design. 

Visually balanced means that the visible elements, when viewed from the front, are similar in proportion when an iPad is docked on top. The transom is thick enough, vertically, to look as though it can support the iPad (though the device is really very light), and the speakers are similar in dimension so as not to look "underpowered" when the iPad is placed on top. If any of these elements were much smaller, the iPad would look out of scale.

The logic is only nonsensical if you don't understand what words mean. A dock implies a quick attachment. The iPod/iPad demand that their screens be visible, so it's a foregone conclusion that the device will be visible & upright. If you think that that's a fallacy, please provide an example of a usable dock that does not follow this paradigm. All iOS devices are either on top of or in front of the chassis. Anything else would be unusable in the paradigm of a dock since remote control is limited to basic navigation and not rich browsing.

On your final point, your argument would not be correct, though, and would be counter to the stated intention of the designer. While artistic objects inspire multiple interpretations, it is designed to be an iPod/iPad dock with high quality speakers. For a digital music system you move into Sonos/BeoSound 5/Etc. territory where the interface takes on a new paradigm (browsing in your hand instead of locally + the ability to choose from a range of speakers for a range of applications).

I appreciate that you have taken on arguing with me as a pet project, but as my wife can assure you, I do not lose arguments. I will wear you down to a nub and leave you a trembling husk. I will do this even if I'm wrong. Happy New Year!  

TripEnglish wrote:

Visually balanced means that the visible elements, when viewed from the front, are similar in proportion when an iPad is docked on top. The transom is thick enough, vertically, to look as though it can support the iPad (though the device is really very light), and the speakers are similar in dimension so as not to look "underpowered" when the iPad is placed on top. If any of these elements were much smaller, the iPad would look out of scale.

Another piece of your circular arguments: You're saying that it's visually balanced, because the dimensions of the speakers and bridge doesn't change.

The logic is only nonsensical if you don't understand what words mean. A dock implies a quick attachment. The iPod/iPad demand that their screens be visible, so it's a foregone conclusion that the device will be visible & upright.

No, it's circular logic and nonsensical, because you choose to use a descriptor of functionality to define "good design", by claiming that the descriptive word "dock" describes the BS8 very well.

If you think that that's a fallacy, please provide an example of a usable dock that does not follow this paradigm. All iOS devices are either on top of or in front of the chassis. Anything else would be unusable in the paradigm of a dock since remote control is limited to basic navigation and not rich browsing.

See above.

On your final point, your argument would not be correct, though, and would be counter to the stated intention of the designer. While artistic objects inspire multiple interpretations, it is designed to be an iPod/iPad dock with high quality speakers. For a digital music system you move into Sonos/BeoSound 5/Etc. territory where the interface takes on a new paradigm (browsing in your hand instead of locally + the ability to choose from a range of speakers for a range of applications).

You're misrepresenting what I say. My point is not at all about moving this into the territory of Sonos and Squeezebox, it's about this thing being a boom box using an iPad/iPhone/iPod as a source. That is the only design brief that makes sense, not "design a dock".

I appreciate that you have taken on arguing with me as a pet project, but as my wife can assure you, I do not lose arguments. I will wear you down to a nub and leave you a trembling husk. I will do this even if I'm wrong. Happy New Year!  

Hmm, just because you don't give up or change your stance, doesn't mean you don't loose the argument.

Being willfully obtuse doesn't impress girls. 

TripEnglish wrote:

Being willfully obtuse doesn't impress girls. 

Well done, you have just examplified why I seem to focus on your pseudo-argumentation and unsubstantiated claims  🤒

I think it is about expectations - what you (or I) have grown to expect from B&O.

Like a fine wine from well known vineyard.

And, just because we've come to expect iThingies to be 'docked' doesn't mean they have to be. I get quite annoyed when I want to use my iPhone when it is docked. It is not easy to use and feels fragile stuck on the connector.