What is your preferred acoustical perspective?

[Woochifer]

Actually, I'm applying experiential data across a forty year span of time. You can certainly cite any number of individual exceptions.

But, again you're presuming that high performance quality and high energy level cannot exist within the same performance. My "experiential data" obviously differs from yours.

It's not that video can't have good sound. Why bother and limit your choices? I'm with the 98.5% of the music market who doesn't care about video.

How's it about limiting choices? Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy by presuming that it's an either/or proposition. By including video products in music purchases, the range of options actually expands. I don't know anyone who buys just videos for their music library, yet you're the one claiming that audio quality is "immaterial" to people who buy music videos.

With classical and jazz titles in particular, the two-channel audio tracks are typically encoded at a 48 kHz sampling rate and often uncompressed at 24-bit depth. Extracting the PCM audio tracks actually gives you a higher resolution than the CD release, as is the case with my Leonard Bernstein concert videos, for example. Why bother if sound quality is as "immaterial" to this audience as you say?

I'm listening to the 48/24 audio tracks that I extracted from a Pat Metheny Group concert video as I type this. I find the live performances preferable to the studio versions, with at least comparable audio quality.