Electrified wrote:

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.

No I'm not. Your imagination is playing too heavily into your interpretation. I'm saying that there are 3 visual elements. Two speakers, one transom. These are all give visual weight in their scale and dimension. The iPad is very large, and similar in scale visually. This is what I'm saying. You can't accuse me of circular logic based on an erroneous interpretation of what I'm saying. 

 

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.

It's a dock! That's what it is! Your entire argument on this point is that it's a speaker set that connects to an iPod which is entirely an invention on your part. It's an iPod dock. Not a stereo where one of the sources could potentially be an iPod. It was conceived that way, designed that way, and operates that way. If you're holding out for a different product, that's fine. 

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.

Yes, your point was dealt with handily 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".

Again, see above. Your interpretation was not the design brief. This is an iPod dock. That's the only way it's discussed. That you can plug another device into it is a value-add to the iPod dock form factor. 

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.

You're correct. I win them generally because I'm right. That's especially true here. 

ojibway wrote:

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.

Ojibway,

I think you're making headway on a useful argument. Since the iPhone & iPad are now multifunctional devices, it makes less sense to have the docked. In this regard you could say that the BeoSound 8 is only ideal for those with music-only iPods. I purchased an iPod touch for the stores' demo units because my iPhone would ring and interrupt the music and I'd have to walk across the room to get it. Not a great user-experience. 

Connect an AirPort Express to it instead and now it has an empty space on top where a device was intended to sit (because it's a dock, Electrified!). Now the design really does look incomplete. 

To that I'd say that let's, then, leave the BeoSound 8 as a product that fills a specific niche, and call upon B&O to make a similar product that functions as a pair of remote speakers, be they AirPlay driven or otherwise. 

I for one would welcome a richer offering on the affordable retail end of things.

😴😴 guys im tired of your argumentations ...

if we come to the question , "how would you change the BS 8"  ( engadget classics :)

I would have left out the dock from the beginning, instead rely on wireless bridgeCo airplay interface. Make more space between the both loudspeakers for better stereo , give its own screen for radio, music info and acoustic lenses for those with higher expectations :D , and some "real" wheels as hard interfaces on the unit.
And let it assemble in the arctic by some happy penguins instead in china  :D and everyone will be happy.(new year )

{edit 30.12.10}

This is what I meant ...a virtual docking via airplay instead of a physical :) ... if a ipod "docks"(connects) the icon changes into a ipod icon and so on ... yawninggg 😴 yeah..

@@Puncher :) dual - driver

Tomaz, 

Anyone who can put up an alternative design like that has the right to the last word. See you on the outside. Well done.

Trip

Excellent work Tomaz !

I don't need one, and probably will not purchase one, but your ideas and rendering is quite an improvement.

Slightly off-topic, but Tomaz' design makes me think of just how difficult the inclusion of an acoustic lens is in an overall design. I personally thought it was the achilles heel of the BeoVision 9.

I think it looks best incorporated in the BeoLab 9s, but the best way I've seen to deal with it is mechanical motion such as in the dashboards of the cars. I'd like to see us introduce a speaker with an acoustic lens that pops up.

TripEnglish wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but Tomaz' design makes me think of just how difficult the inclusion of an acoustic lens is in an overall design. I personally thought it was the achilles heel of the BeoVision 9.

I think it looks best incorporated in the BeoLab 9s, but the best way I've seen to deal with it is mechanical motion such as in the dashboards of the cars. I'd like to see us introduce a speaker with an acoustic lens that pops up.

+1

TripEnglish wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but Tomaz' design makes me think of just how difficult the inclusion of an acoustic lens is in an overall design. I personally thought it was the achilles heel of the BeoVision 9.

I think it looks best incorporated in the BeoLab 9s, but the best way I've seen to deal with it is mechanical motion such as in the dashboards of the cars. I'd like to see us introduce a speaker with an acoustic lens that pops up.

And that has actually been mentioned many times on the forum as an idea!

In Tomaz' concept (which I really like, I suppose we'll see that many times in the following years as a thread starter: "I just found this, is it the new Beo*** ***?"...) they could probably roll over to reveal a solid ball backside when not in use. Silly, perhaps, useless, perhaps, but out of harm's and dust's way and... magic.

TripEnglish wrote:

No I'm not. Your imagination is playing too heavily into your interpretation. I'm saying that there are 3 visual elements. Two speakers, one transom. These are all give visual weight in their scale and dimension. The iPad is very large, and similar in scale visually. This is what I'm saying. You can't accuse me of circular logic based on an erroneous interpretation of what I'm saying. 

Again: I think you should reread your post. It's not an erroneous interpretation. Your argument was that as the speakers and bridge stayed the same, it stayed the same.

Further, there are not three visual elements, but four of five. Since the iPod/iPhone/iPad is meant to be docked, those two different sized slates are elements too. And since they either look abondoned (in the case of the iPod/iPhone) in the middle of it all, or dominate the set-up in the case of the iPad, B&O haven't come up with a design that works with both. It's trying to sit between two chairs.

TripEnglish wrote:

It's a dock! That's what it is! Your entire argument on this point is that it's a speaker set that connects to an iPod which is entirely an invention on your part.

No it's not. It's a description of what it actually is. You trying to pretend that because it has a dock for the iThingies, then it is a dock, is like saying Beolab 5s are DACs because they happen to have a DAC in them.

TripEnglish wrote:

Yes, your point was dealt with handily above.

Not even close. Your red herrings and logical fallacies are never dealing handily with anything.

TripEnglish wrote:

On your final point, your argument would not be correct, though, and would be counter to the stated intention of the designer.

No it wouldn't. If it were merely a dock, and not "a set of connected speakers (i.e. "boom box") using the iThings as a source", you would end up with a dock. You know, one of those small things without speakers.

TripEnglish wrote:

While artistic objects inspire multiple interpretations, it is designed to be an iPod/iPad dock with high quality speakers.

Okay, let me spell it out for you: What you just described is "a boom box using an iThing as a source". I reallly don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for you.

TripEnglish wrote:

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).

Speaking of inventions. I never argued that it should move into such a territory. That is a complete and utter strawman.

TripEnglish wrote:

Again, see above. Your interpretation was not the design brief. This is an iPod dock. That's the only way it's discussed. That you can plug another device into it is a value-add to the iPod dock form factor. 

No, this is not an iPod dock. This is a pair of speakers which happens to use a dock to connect the various iThings.

TripEnglish wrote:

You're correct. I win them generally because I'm right. That's especially true here. 

LOL, no, you think you win because you use red herrings, strawman arguments and outright deny listening to reason and valid argumentation. Your assertation that you're right here, is just laughable. But if that constitutes "winning" in your world, I'm really not surprised you think you're winning all the time. It also explains your attitude towards anyone having the nerve to not be a yesman when it comes to B&O.

Nice solution and rendering, Tomaz.

As it's a plan view I cannot see if the speakers are raised or flush with the central bar. I suggested they should be flush (or almost flush).

This looks like it should be wall-mounted. Otherwise you lose the integrity of the form with all thats happening at the back - unless the back has the same attention applied.

No dock but an information screen is a vast improvement. Maybe the BOys at BO should take a look.

I think that the general consensus is that the the Beosound 8 leaves room for improvement and that it was a mistake to try to dock an iPhone or iPad which have a whole lot of other functions. Easiest would be to give it a few gigs of memory and transfer your music to it. Shove in an internet radio receiver and go and play games, make phone calls, mess with photos or do whatever else you do with your iGadget.