dobyblue
Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: May 2009 |
|
Posted: May 31 2010, 09:27 |
|
Quote (starfish @ May 21 2010, 18:05) | Quote (dobyblue @ May 18 2010, 14:18) | Quote (Tati The Sentinel @ May 18 2010, 13:56) | Quote (dobyblue @ May 18 2010, 14:28) | Come on Mike, do a Blu-ray 5.1 release of TB, HR and OD, please. |
We still don't have any of his released DVDs on blu-ray yet...it's a pity that this bunch of rereleases does not feature any blu-ray for our pleasure. |
I think it would be great to see his DVD's on Blu-ray if the source material is in good enough shape or at least to get a lossless surround mix.
But what I'm really interested in is a high resolution AUDIO Blu-ray of the 2009/2010 Tubular Bells, Hergest Ridge and Ommadawn albums. A 50GB Blu-ray could easily fit everything that's included on the 2CD+DVD set all in 24-bit/192kHz resolution.
I mean I'd gladly take the CD+DVD set if the DVD was a DVD-Audio disc like TB 2003 then I could enjoy a lossless 24/96 multi-channel mix while those to whom fidelity is not important could enjoy the Dolby 5.1 mix on the DVD-Video layer...and I'd gladly put out for an SACD...but clearly Blu-ray is the best medium going forward for high resolution music and I think MO is missing out on being one of the leaders here along with Neil Young, Trent Reznor and Tom Petty.
I have to admit, I'm definitely bummed. I hope perhaps by 2012 we might see the Blu-ray audio editions of TB, HR and OD and moving forwards with the rest of the catalogue also. |
I'm sure Universal take great care in their marketing decisions.
But frankly they are going going to release stuff they think will sell. SACD never really caught on, and Blu-ray is still an emerging format. Hell, there are some classic films yet to be released on Blu-Ray due to lack of demand!
Blu-ray technology is still in its infancy. There are less economies of scale involved compared with older, more pupular formats such as CDs or DVDs - formats which are more than adequate for 99% of the population. Blu-ray Discs cost more and sell less. Whatever incentive is there for Universal to release such a beast?
These albums are being lovingly remastered, with demos and new mixes and bonus tracks a-plenty. Given that - unlike the evergreen Tubular Bells - they probably aren't going to sell too well outside of the hardcore Mike Oldfield fanbase, that's a wonder in itself. Sadly that's not enough for some people. |
As you may have guessed, , I strongly disagree. The biggest cost in this project is the additional time it takes in studio to do the 5.1 mix. This has already been done. Including a DVD-A lossless MLP track for the surround would have added ZERO cost. As for CD's and DVD's being good enough for 99% of the population, how does that explain certain titles seeing 49% of sales on the Blu-ray format? How does that explain the ever-dwindling CD and DVD sales? UMG should be looking to the future, not holding on to the past. Lovingly mastered is fine, but there is nothing lovingly at all about lossy Dolby Digital.
In 2006 when Blu-ray Disc were brand new and everything was uber-expensive, a project needed to only move 20,000 units to be profitable. Now it's probably more like 200 units. Doing a DVD-A would have cost nothing extra...doing a Blu-ray would have been minimal because all that was left to do was author and press.
|