A hypothetical question for you.

[neil wilkes]

Supposing there was a potential release for BDA that was originally a 2 album set.
Supposing it also gets CD & DVD-A/V editions, both of which have to be split across 2 discs.
Question:
Do we make the BDA match the rest of it and do 2 BD25 discs, or do we put it all onto one BD50?
Also - please state why you voted the way you did?

 

[neil wilkes]

I'll start it all off.
Personally I favour splitting across 2 discs. Not only will this match the original format better as well as keep things the same across all editions, but it also avoids the potential problems of Layer Breaks in the Blu-Ray.

 

[IMachine]

I voted for one disc. I never had problems with Layer Breaks and I am a lazy person.
So I have not to switch the discs and can enjoy the music as a whole.
Just think about some loading times, before you can enter the menu..........

 

[ProgRules]

I voted for one disc. I never had problems with Layer Breaks and I am a lazy person.
So I have not to switch the discs and can enjoy the music as a whole.
Just think about some loading times, before you can enter the menu..........

You summed up my feelings pretty well.

Also, wouldn't a double album fit on 1 BD-25 anyway?

 

[colsky]

I voted for one disc. I never had problems with Layer Breaks and I am a lazy person.
So I have not to switch the discs and can enjoy the music as a whole.
Just think about some loading times, before you can enter the menu..........

What he say. Unless there are potential space problems. Agreed that waiting for blu-ray player to turn on, then load a disc can sometimes be painful.

 

[Quad Linda]

Give me as few discs as needed to store the performance(s.)

IMHO, many discs have been split into two, simply because the consumer thinks he/she is getting more. Buy a cheapo CD compilation on 10 discs, and you'll find them at 25 minutes each. They weren't released as 4 CD's because that sounds like so much less. @:

Like many, I'm lazy. A single Blu-Ray is a wonderful touch over a multi-DVD set. If there is an artistic need to separate works, simply insert a long pause. Joe Jackson did that on the CD release of Blaze of Glory.

 

[Pockets17red]

Supposing there was a potential release for BDA that was originally a 2 album set.
Supposing it also gets CD & DVD-A/V editions, both of which have to be split across 2 discs.
Question:
Do we make the BDA match the rest of it and do 2 BD25 discs, or do we put it all onto one BD50?
Also - please state why you voted the way you did?

I've been wondering what should be done for "that" album as well....
Would it cost any more to have 2 BD25 discs instead of just 1 BD50?

 

[Bob Romano]

I can play either BD25 or 50 without any problem just fine . So I am up for either. My first inclination is to have one disc with everything because - it has everything with no disc change. But if it makes it better for the masses and keeping things uniform, then that would be ok with me too.

 

[ProgRules]

So- I know NW can't comment, but this is making me anxious that Tales is next in line... That would be so cool...

 

[colsky]

So- I know NW can't comment, but this is making me anxious that Tales is next in line... That would be so cool...

Aah, nice logical leap there, here's hoping! Also, here's hoping that the amount of extras on that one will make a double BDA absolutely necessary

 

[MarkN]

I would prefer a single disc mainly for convenience, and due to the sometimes slow load times for Blu-ray discs. I tend to listen to albums all the way through without taking a break on multiple disc sets, and having to get up, change discs, wait for the load time and navigate through the various menus to get the play started on disc two would be rather annoying. I've never noticed a layer break on a Blu-ray (unlike on dual-layer DVDs). Perhaps I've never encountered a Blu-ray disc that has a layer change in the midst of action. While I somewhat agree with the argument for keeping the packages consistent across the different formats (BD, DVD-A and CD), I would guess that using two BD25s would also cost more than one BD50.

 

[timbre4]

Two discs = more extras; you're not likely to listen to all of it in one sitting.

 

[IMachine]

Two discs = more extras; you're not likely to listen to all of it in one sitting.

Why not? I always listen to Lamb lies down on broadway completely.

 

[blue.monk]

I would prefer one disc for all the reasons others have mentioned. I've enjoyed the convenience when other formats (CD, DVD) have combined 2-LP sets to single disc, i.e. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Tommy and Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. Plus the extra load times on Blu-Ray discs are a drag.

Thanks Neil!

 

[rtbluray]

I voted for one disc, mainly because it allows for one listen to the full album without needing to switch over to another disc.
I love the way this works for "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" but also for newer albums like "Grace For Drowning" which is around 83 mins, just long enough to where it needs 2 CDs, but on the Blu-Ray version, one disc, and you can listen to the album in one sitting. Same with "The Incident" and "Fear of a Blank Planet". One DVD-A where we can enjoy all the content.

Now for some double records like "Tommy" and "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road", this isn't a concern because the full album is less than 79 mins so it should be able to fit all on one disc, whether that's CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc
Now a record like "Quadrophenia" should have been 2 DVD-As with the full 5.1 mix, but alas…

When it comes to making this decision though, if 2 discs means more extra content, then give me two discs. If everything (album and extras) can fit onto one, give me one. Simple as that.
(Funny you bring up this poll as I was just thinking the other day about how "Tales" would work in this new reissue series seeing as how it's a double album…)

 

[timbre4]

I'd listen to Lamb all the way as well, time permitting. But I'd be hard pressed to name many other works like that. Given the boxes with 24 discs, so two discs seems like no major penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quad Linda]

I'll disagree, Tim. Even boxes like Miles' Complete Columbia at 70 CD's or Nilsson at 17 CD's would be far more convenient on less discs. Less changing discs and less space to store. My collection numbers 20,000 and takes up two whole rooms. No, I'm not putting it all on a cloud any time soon.

I'd listen to Lamb all the way as well, time permitting. But I'd be hard pressed to name many other works like that. Given the boxes with 24 discs, so two discs seems like no major penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rusinurbe]

Single disc for me There are artistic merits to having two discs but then if that the case why not four discs one for each side of the vinyl ?

You would already have broken the original format by only having two single sided discs.

If is a case of space then why not have the second disc hold the extras. ( thinking multichannel disc and a stereo or mono disc) tacking extras on both discs,

Ohh the dilemma so many options

Single disc is the way to go.

 

[timbre4]

We seem to going way out if the way here ! Unless it's a 45 rpm megabuck vinyl reissue there's no reason for 4 discs, besides there being no historical precedent of such for two record sets.

We're not talking 17 or 70! We're talking 2 discs in a single case.

Out of all that, the main on 1 extras on 2 approach seems sound.

EDIT: Factor in load times and perhaps behavior funkiness that BD25s avoid. I'd not want to look back at an important release and say "that would have performed better as a pair".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Robert van Diggele]

Hi Neil, interesting poll. I voted 1 disc, even when the original album was a 2LP. Perhaps with a longer pause between the last track of LP 1 and the first track of LP 2, as Linda also suggested.

When there is a load of extras I would prefer a 2 disc set, with the original album on disc 1 and an alternate album on disc 2.

Looking forward to the project where this hypothetical question comes into place.