starfish
Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: June 2009 |
 |
Posted: June 04 2010, 13:22 |
 |
| Quote (dobyblue @ May 31 2010, 09:27) | 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. |
Oh, I'm not knocking your opinion at all - I'm sure that for "audiophiles" (I hate that word), having the albums in lossless 5.1 would be a godsend. I'm just not sure it's commerically viable, that's all. A few responses to your points...
Certain films may well indeed sell 49% of their copies on BD. However, there are many reasons why this could be the case: some BDs have exclusive extras that the DVD editions do not, for example. And don't forget that not everyone who buys a Blu-ray Disc does so for the sound. A lot of people I know just buy the discs for the improvement in picture quality alone, and just have the sound coming out of their regular TV speakers. Just because Blu-ray sales can be good, it doesn't necessarily follow that all those who purchase the discs have a surround-sound setup. Furthermore, there could be other reasons why sales of CDs and DVDs are dwindling, such as downloads (both legal and illegal), the global worldwide recession, plus of course the fact that more people are going to the cinema!
On to my next point - you argue that BD costs would be minimal, because the only costs involved would be the authoring and pressing. But BD authoring is very, very expensive. If you're expecting to sell lots of units, authoring costs can be spread very thinly. Thats why chart CDs and other media tned to retail for a lot less than niche items distributed on indie labels - because sales are lower for niche items, the authoring cost is spread over fewer units, thereby raising the price. It's one thing to sell hundreds of thousands of units of Avatar on Blu-ray, but a few hundred Mike Oldfield audio discs would be another matter entirely.
I fully understand your reasons for wanting the albums in a lossless format, and in an ideal world they'd be released in all formats to cater for every fan. But realistically it ain't gonna happen - not for a good while, anyway.
|
And the CD itself has 2 tracks, but the final song is indexed. 
Maybe it is the fool (ommadawn)!! 
