Simple. There's usually three pieces of criteria that go into any vote: surround, fidelity, and content. I give three points total for each of those categories, and the last remaining point is usually a gimme as long as it's a High-Res disc (DVDA, SACD, Blu-Ray). I don't think I've ever given a '10' to anything that's just DVD-V just cause it can't quite be on the same plane as the very best High-Res discs.
Plus it's 2015, and I can't understand why DVD-V is still being used for audio-only releases, especially when a company like Panegyric has proven that CD/DVD-A and/or CD/Blu-Ray releases can be done with a lot of amazing content and sold for a really affordable price.
So concerning the overall release of "Minstrel in the Gallery" it gets 3 points each for surround, fidelity, and content, and that's why it get a '9' overall.
So that makes 4 pieces of criteria for you then: surround, fidelity, content and format. I understand your reasoning, I just fail to see the logic. The way I see it, if the fact that it's lossy affects the fidelity or the surround, a point (or more) would be deducted for that reason, with a concomitant explanation, e.g. "I took a point off for fidelity b/c the drum sound was not as full as I'd like." It almost seems to me as if you're automatically deducting a point b/c of your frustration w/ the industry not standardizing to hi-rez lossless. While I agree w/ you in failing to see the logic of offering dvd-v instead of dvd-a (but then I'm pretty ignorant of the whole process/costs involved w/ creating, authoring, licensing, etc.), I don't understand taking a point off for the mere fact that a mix is delivered via lossy format, regardless of how good that mix ends up sounding.
But then you state that a dvd-v can never be on the same plane as the very best hi-rez discs. So I assume this means you "think" this mix would be better if delivered in hi-rez lossless. But if that's so, wouldn't the difference be something that could be pointed out? Personally, I'm firmly in the camp that believes any differences between delivery formats (let's exclude MP3's) pales in comparison to the quality of the mix. And to these old ears, on my modest system, this mix sounds fantastic.
I began this whole tangent b/c to me, this set is so fabulous in every way it deserves a 10, if anything does. Not only do we get a fantastic 5.1 mix of the album and a bonus song, we also get the concert in 5.1, a flat transfer of the original mix, a new 2.0 mix (in redbook and hi-rez), more bonus songs in 2.0 and a great book. If someone had a concrete objection to the fidelity, surround or content, while I likely wouldn't agree, that I could understand. But sans any deductions in any of those areas, it just seems to me rather arbitrary and unfair to deduct for the format. But that's just how I see it.
Who knows, maybe 5 years from now when they release this same mix on BR to get us to buy the same album once again and there is a noticeable improvement in the sound, you can say "see- THAT'S what I was talking about." But for now, I am just thrilled w/ how this sounds. And with all the amazing content. These Tull sets are the best value in surround releases imo, b/c they do offer so much (but foremost for me, they contain excellent 5.1 mixes).