Yes, confirmation bias is a real effect. Unfortunately I have a feeling that debate about scientific testing and blind testing is not allowed here (as endless debates on this has proven that progress is never made). I've not done extensive blind trials at home. But I have put on lossless recordings a few times, found that things didn't seem to be as good as they should, checked settings, and found that my movie or audio was not playing the lossless track but one of the lossy tracks provided so that all could play the disc. I've also found that when I do many hours of audio (which for me can be going from music to movie and back) that lossy to CD to lossless hi-rez all sound good if played first, and moving up things sound better, but I have to plan my listening so I don't move down. One of the reasons I don't like lossy DTS is that what I like to do is play the old stereo version just before I play the new surround version for the first time. If I do this with say a Yes release then I can play the hi-rez flat orignal master and then the hi-rez 5.1 remix by SW. This works well. But if I play the hi-rez original and then a DTS 5.1 the 5.1 sounds second rate. This was so much the case with the Opeth remixes that after doing the lossless hi-rez stereo I had to stop listening to the 5.1 because it sounded terrible. So I don't think that my issue is confirmation bias. But I haven't had a friend prepared to do all the swaps back and forth between two versions for me to be able to scientifically prove that the difference I think I hear are real. PS - If there really is no difference between 1.5Mbps DTS and the lossless hi-rez formats on blu ray then all the hi-rez blu ray is nothing other than confirmation bias and marketing.
No, lossless is lossless. It means something. The only question is whether one can truly hear a difference between 1.5Mbps DTS and lossless as verified through double-blind ABX testing. Given absolutely ideal test conditions, I imagine I (and you) might be able to reliably identify the lossless as superior, but it's not a foregone conclusion given the extreme power of confirmation bias in normal listening. But I will always buy/listen to the lossless option if available, so that I know for certain that what I'm buying/listening to is not data compromised in any way.
Confirmation bias is real. But confirmation bias doesn't prove that a 128k MP3 sounds as good as a hi-rez lossless. As you say, when you listen to the hi-rez lossless you know that you are hearing the best. You just don't know whether or not a lower bit rate may have the same quality. The big question is whether or not I (and some others) are right to be upset that the Tull is only in DTS because of a few listening test by a few people using their particular equipment heard no difference but, perhaps others, listening on different equipment, and perhaps for a longer time can hear a difference. (I suspect the listening tests were quick A/B/A/B comparisons as by the time of doing this no-one had any interest in sitting down and listening to the whole album - and good volume - yet again. ) And as I said before, if there really is no difference for anyone then surely we could have all saved money by having all the Yes and King Crimson and other stuff just in 1.5M DTS. So if there is no difference I've been ripped off paying for things I don't need
My point (in my previous posts) was that there is indeed a small difference when you compare directly the lossless mix to the lossy DTS 96/24 master -comparing for these purposes a stereo (lossless) mix to a (lossy) surround mix (sometimes made several decades later) is a bit weird, it's like comparing a mono mix and a stereo remix. When you mix an album, you know it by heart, and I mean by heart: every tiny detail, even the "grain" of the mix, become embedded in your memory, sometimes forever! So directly comparing the lossless mix to the mix once it has been lossy compressed of course makes the difference apparent, but even then, it is not a huge difference to the overall feel and rendering of the mix. Even to the ears of those who mixed it. My point was that you shouldn't be too upset that they are only available in lossy DTS 96/24 (for the moment is my guess) as it sounds remarkably close to the master mixes when properly decoded and reproduced. I utterly support giving the customers the uncompromised lossless masters, but lossy DTS 96/24 is the next best thing we have. Dolby AC3 is much more compromised.
As part of the latest Aqualung I expressed a preference for quad with dts master audio. The whole album was listened to many times.
I do think the 40th anniversary bluray sounds fine but I still want to listen to the new 5.1 version without mew's mastering...So you think they both sound excellent?
The mixes themselves are excellent, out of this world. I immensely enjoy both 5.1 versions. And the Quad mix (identical on both releases). The mastering on the Blu-Ray surround doesn't damage the sound like I thought it did with the stereo remix.
Yes, the 5.1 mix is great. Thanks. Listened to the quad of War Child today for a change and it was cool too compared to the 5.1. Great that they include both...
No one says it does. What the existence of confirmation bias (and other biases) means is just this: comparisons made 'sighted' are not as trustworthy as you think. Maybe you were. Can you live with that possibility?
In my ears the overall sound quality of the stereo remix of both Benefit and Aqualung (40th _adapted_ box set 2016), Red Book audio, are very disappointing, see here Jethro Tull Aqualung 45 anniversary deluxe soon? As I do not own the 2011 Aqualung edition on CD (apart from MP3), are there significant differences soundwise (i.e. improvements, as the MP3 version does imply to me)? Thank you!
It seems like you prefer your music brighter and louder than the flat transfers of Steven Wilson's remixes. If your MP3s are from the 2011 version, sure, you'll like the double-CD better.
Speaking in terms of cooking: I do respect that the whole team tried to get the best ingredients for the spaghetti, but unfortunately, in the end, they forgot to add salt to the boiling water. But there is a chance that is was not forgotten in 2011 Aqualung (Red Book CDs) => so i should try the old one (2CD). I do listen quite loud to music whenever i can. It's the moment of truth for any recording. Nevertheless, even if the family is off, i cannot do that with most modern releases (far too much salt). But it's a pleasure with excellent rereleases like Supertramp's "Crime Of The Century" (2010 remaster) or Alan Parsons' Projekt "I Robot" (2013 remaster/deluxe edition). That was my hope for the Tull remixes, too.
It would seem highly unlikely, given that a "Collector's Edition" already exists, with new 2008 stereo mixes by Peter Mew(?).
I made the stupid mistake of waiting on buying Minstrel in the Gallery - even after Steve Wilson made a Facebook post telling people to grab it because sticks were low. Then two strange things happened. Firstly a small amount of stock arrived at Amazon.co.uk in recent weeks. Of course they've hiked the price to almost twice what it was originally, but it still beats Ebay prices. The second things was..... I finally went to buy myself a copy, and someone had posted their copy Used, for the original sales price. Result! Two lessons there - 1) If you really want something, just get it, even if you think the price might drop later. In this case I got it wrong, but regardless, what Tull fan doesn't want this? 2) If prices have gotten too rich for your blood, wait. Good things can happen. MY music buying has gotten way out of hand lately, it's time to rope it back in. But this is a real cherry on top.
Man - these book sets are just gorgeous. Would hate to be without them now. Whoever does all the work on the book(lets) get my praise all day long.
Thanks Plan 9. BTW, I think this may be "outside your department", but you wouldn't happen to know if these digital releases have any sort of watermarking? After the UMG fiasco, I've become somewhat more scrutinizing in this regard. (Since TAAB is a Warner release according to HDTracks, I'd assume it doesn't).
Sorry, I can't say as I have the masters and not the download copies. I assume they are identical. I guess people would have picked up the degradation by now if they were audibly watermarked. And I don't think any Warner Hi-Res release was watermarked.
