A hypothetical question for you.

[HomerJAU]

I voted for a single disc. It's about convenience. (and I'd be surprised if 2 discs would be cheaper to manufacture?)

Looking forward to XTC - English Settlement BTW

 

[steelydave]

I'd like it spread across 6 double-sided discs, that way the blu-ray grooves will be further apart and the sound will be better.

 

[elmer]

I think it's safe to say that we all want the best listening experience. I have never had any issue with BD 50 at all and would prefer it over 2 BD 25 discs. Whatever works best is my ultimate preference.

 

[timbre4]

Addendum

At this point nobody knows the extent of the extras for this hypothetical title, or how they should best be arranged. Knowledge of those specifics could change things.

From a testing point of view, I am concerned that a BD50 test disc will have compatibility issues as a number of DVD9 project exhibited on testing with multiple DVD-A players. This is not a concern with the final commercial product because of the way it is created and that plays universally; but getting there can sometimes be an ordeal.

Oh and there's no BD50 blank discs in the cupboard! [adds to grocery list thinking even when the first burn is good, a couple of these would blow my allowance at these prices] My problem not yours.

 

[grill]

I voted for one disc. However, if the two-disc version is cheaper to manifacture than I'd vote for 2 discs to save and give a bit more money to the artists.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

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.

I voted to put it all on one BD. In this day of technology, why do I want to get up and flip the LP over? This is exactly why I'll choose BD over DVD-A. It's bad enough when I need to change to another record. And, can we get rid of the CD already and include a link in the package for a minimum Redbook download?:yikes

 

[ssully]

With me it's all getting ripped to hard drive anyway. So might as well be one disc to rip instead of two.

 

[OldAsMono]

I recently was "forced" to get a turntable when my wife said, "Either get a turntable or get rid of the album collection!" Boy that was a tough call... This is almost like asking if I want to deal with four discs (album sides) or one disc. I'll take the single disc and program the playback based upon the current emotional requirements. Thanks for asking.

 

[quadsearcher]

I voted for two BD discs, just because I'm scared of some kind of bit rot. 50g on an optical disc is a lot to ask. Disclaimer: Although there may be very cool extras, I'm still buying DVDA so far because it is easier for the car. If I only wanted to play it at home I wouldn't mind a four tape set.

 

[neil wilkes]

I voted one disc. With that I'd really like to see a "Pure Audio" implementation - where the user can select the track via the remote number pad.

You should be pleased with The Yes Album then - this one is done to PA-BD guidelines and then some.

 

[neil wilkes]

Thank you Neil, it is nice to see someone ask the consumer what we want for once.

You're welcome - that was the whole point of this thread.

FWIW, I'm always open to comments and/or serious - dare I say "sensible"? - suggestions on improving what we do.

 

[Suffolk David]

Whilst I agree it makes sense to get as much on a single disc as possible, I think if it was a reissue of a familiar double album, I'd prefer it as a two blu ray set. There are many albums where I think of the end of the first LP as being intended to be a break, like The Wall for instance: I'd want the bit between Goodbye Cruel World and the start of Hey You to be an actual break. I like the idea of a double album remaining that way whatever the format.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

Voted "all-in-one". The double albums were there because of technical limitation. No need for nostalgy in this case, with hi-res only the sky is our limit.

 

[DennisMoore Jr.]

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.

Only 4 of us voted for double bluray discs? Sometimes the masses are wrong.

First. We are already committed to two red book and DVD-A discs so we are talking about either 5 or 6 discs. No biggie either way. But it would be nice to have the same feel of the original.

Second. The most important reason for two discs is the layer break which Neil mentioned already. Most should know that a blueray disc contains around 25 GB PER LAYER. Most blank BD-R discs are sold at the 25 GB capacity so you can not back-up your precious single disc BD-50. When the ink goes bad and the disc doesn't play - you are screwed.

If we go with BD-50 then most burning software will have problems with the layer break(where the discs connects its two 25GB layers.) Pro authoring tools handle a layer break with aplomb. Disc copying software does not. We'll have difficulty copying to even BD-50 discs even if you had them. DVD video copying software will let you choose several ideal spots to house the "layer break" for DVD9 to DVD9. Music is different. And copying a BD-50 audio disc to BD-R 25 is impossible.

So if we go BD-50 say "bye bye" to being able to have a back up copy of your precious collection.

Do we want to do that?

 

[leevitalone1]

I like the DSOTM and WYWH disc with all versions on it, allowing the listener to choose the format, two discs is a waste but will take what I can get!

 

[HomerJAU]

Only 4 of us voted for double bluray discs?....

So if we go BD-50 say "bye bye" to being able to have a back up copy of your precious collection.

Do we want to do that?

I don't backup to CD, DVD or BD discs. I backup my individual optical discs to a 3Tb hard disc. And I backup my backup hard disc to a second backup backup hard disc. Copy speed is way way faster than to individual optical disc. And I can move my 3.5" backup to my external garage for extra 'off site' storage easier than 400 discs too.

I also play back from a hard disk.

I wouldn't say bye bye.

 

[ssully]

I don't backup to CD, DVD or BD discs. I backup my individual optical discs to a 3Tb hard disc. And I backup my backup hard disc to a second backup backup hard disc. Copy speed is way way faster than to individual optical disc. And I can move my 3.5" backup to my external garage for extra 'off site' storage easier than 400 discs too.

I also play back from a hard disk.

I wouldn't say bye bye.

Same here. Single vs double disc -- couldn't care less. It's not an issue. It all goes to hard drives anyway.

 

[IMachine]

Only 4 of us voted for double bluray discs? Sometimes the masses are wrong.

First. We are already committed to two red book and DVD-A discs so we are talking about either 5 or 6 discs. No biggie either way. But it would be nice to have the same feel of the original.

Second. The most important reason for two discs is the layer break which Neil mentioned already. Most should know that a blueray disc contains around 25 GB PER LAYER. Most blank BD-R discs are sold at the 25 GB capacity so you can not back-up your precious single disc BD-50. When the ink goes bad and the disc doesn't play - you are screwed.

If we go with BD-50 then most burning software will have problems with the layer break(where the discs connects its two 25GB layers.) Pro authoring tools handle a layer break with aplomb. Disc copying software does not. We'll have difficulty copying to even BD-50 discs even if you had them. DVD video copying software will let you choose several ideal spots to house the "layer break" for DVD9 to DVD9. Music is different. And copying a BD-50 audio disc to BD-R 25 is impossible.

So if we go BD-50 say "bye bye" to being able to have a back up copy of your precious collection.

Do we want to do that?

I want to have one disc if possible.
Never had any problems with layer-breaks.....but even more with a break to switch the disc

 

[Fourplay]

An interesting poll. I have always preferred less physical media with more content. This is one of the appeals of the Blu-Ray format. Another consideration is production expense and potential disposal in the landfill some fine day. I say, keep it efficient. I also like listening to things straight through and do not prefer the need to change media to do so.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Only 4 of us voted for double bluray discs? Sometimes the masses are wrong.

First. We are already committed to two red book and DVD-A discs so we are talking about either 5 or 6 discs. No biggie either way. But it would be nice to have the same feel of the original.

Second. The most important reason for two discs is the layer break which Neil mentioned already. Most should know that a blueray disc contains around 25 GB PER LAYER. Most blank BD-R discs are sold at the 25 GB capacity so you can not back-up your precious single disc BD-50. When the ink goes bad and the disc doesn't play - you are screwed.

If we go with BD-50 then most burning software will have problems with the layer break(where the discs connects its two 25GB layers.) Pro authoring tools handle a layer break with aplomb. Disc copying software does not. We'll have difficulty copying to even BD-50 discs even if you had them. DVD video copying software will let you choose several ideal spots to house the "layer break" for DVD9 to DVD9. Music is different. And copying a BD-50 audio disc to BD-R 25 is impossible.

So if we go BD-50 say "bye bye" to being able to have a back up copy of your precious collection.

Do we want to do that?

Yes. Again, you are in the minority.