DVD/DTS Poll Jethro Tull - Minstrel In The Gallery 40th Anniversary (Steven Wilson 5.1 Mix) [DTS DVD]

jimfisheye said:

...
I usually give a -1 for anything only released in a lossy format (simply because it's the 21st century)... which still leaves this with a 10/10.
I will say that as one who is sensitive to the various sounds/artifacts of different kinds of generation loss and annoyed by such if I hear it - I don't hear any of that with DTS 24/96. It's technically lossy but it's still delivering what sounds like an HD experience to me. YMMV and some players (hardware and software) may play this with less than 'lossless sounding' results. And the difference will be much more than you would hear from just a sample rate conversion for example.

Click to expand...

I have noticed, to my ears anyway, that Steven Wilson masters released in DTS 24/96 generally do not obviously suffer from this lossy format. Of course, we don't have a MLP or DTS HD Master Audio with which to make a comparison.

jimfisheye said:

I voted 10 but wanted to give it 11.

It's a combination of the remix being up to SW's usual standards and then some, and that the original release was a bit murky in detail more than some of the other albums.

The original was always one of my favorite JT albums. Presentation and overall balances in the original were obviously right on point. What was frustrating was that while we had exceptional vinyl copies of albums like Aqualung and Brick (from MFSL) that brought you closer to the master tape, Minstrel was never made available that way. Always fest like I was missing out.

Apparently, 1. The original tracks are exceptionally recorded (including/especially the drums); 2. The original mix must have been challenging to preserve some/much of that; and 3. Of course such a thing couldn't be easily mastered to vinyl either. Because this new 5.1 mix is just mind blowingly opened up and fantastic sounding!

The contrast between the original and the remix is just stunning in all the right ways.


I usually give a -1 for anything only released in a lossy format (simply because it's the 21st century)... which still leaves this with a 10/10.
I will say that as one who is sensitive to the various sounds/artifacts of different kinds of generation loss and annoyed by such if I hear it - I don't hear any of that with DTS 24/96. It's technically lossy but it's still delivering what sounds like an HD experience to me. YMMV and some players (hardware and software) may play this with less than 'lossless sounding' results. And the difference will be much more than you would hear from just a sample rate conversion for example.

Click to expand...

People complain about DTS being *OMG lossy* (and downvote releases here because of it), but DTS is never really the problem. It's in fact a very good lossy codec. The problem is actually that people tend to 'hear' what they expect to hear, and assign blame to suit those biases, and for many that means there *must* be some obvious 'hit' to sound quality ( because: *OMG LOSSY* just can't be that good) despite there being no evidence that DTS artifacts are egegious.

And yes that includes plain old DTS, not just the 'extended' 96/24 version

ssully said:

People complain about DTS being *OMG lossy* (and downvote releases here because of it), but DTS is never really the problem. It's in fact a very good lossy codec. The problem is actually that people tend to 'hear' what they expect to hear, and assign blame to suit those biases, and for many that means there *must* be some obvious 'hit' to sound quality ( because: *OMG LOSSY* just can't be that good) despite there being no evidence that DTS artifacts are egegious.

And yes that includes plain old DTS, not just the 'extended' 96/24 version

Click to expand...

If someone is voting without actually listening... bad thing.

No, some people are ripping on the format because they've only heard it 'legacy' decoded.
I've heard it myself. The decodes that read it as 48k sound a little funny. Treat the 48k part as a telltale - there's far more loss than a sample rate conversion. The legacy decode sounds along the lines of a 24 bit to 16 bit reduction and then some. Not even close to as appalling as dolby but far far more than the difference of a sample rate conversion.

That was basically the decision behind the format. There's 2 choices for the consumer with older tech: 1. No sound and possible error message about not compatible. 2. Play it back as well as possible but it's going to sound a little funny.
They went with option two.

Personally, I'd like to see the external DAC and/or surround receiver with nice DACs and fed from a computer media player pushed more as a comfortable option. Instead of acting like there's something wrong when a 30 year old machine doesn't play a modern format and then designing this weirdness into these formats to accommodate that.

I do agree that the end result counts and this format properly decoded sounds HD. To the point that I'm comfortable buying these and I'm giving them 9 and 10 ratings which I do not give lightly. (There can only be so many 9's and 10's or they aren't very special right?) I also think it's fair to point out that the release doesn't technically contain the full lossless program because 1. that program it exists and 2. this being an audiophile/home theater release makes such things relevant. Along the same lines, it's appropriate to talk about fidelity only perceivable on high end systems for such a release too.

Does lossy dts make everything sound like the coming of the end times? Well, no. But when you get used to lossless HD it's hard to go back just like it's hard to appreciate nosebleed seats after you've been up front at a show.

Tip for the day:
Got a suspect hardware disc player and think you're having a compromised listening experience with this disc?
Rip the disc to wav/flac files with the proper codec.
Play these from USB or network if your player supports this or burn a DVDA format disc.
Some assembly required...

Did I mention this mix is really good?

ssully said:

I don't give 10s often...

Click to expand...

Me neither! (Seriously, if you think about it, in a relative kind of way..)


But... allow me to pontificate armed with an assist from my humble knowledge of digital sampling...

These book sized Tull releases are technically 9.5s(lacking true lossless audio...) but we will go with 10s since the extra .5 will make Good Sir Jon do all kinds of nasty scripting and perhaps some coding to tabulate that for his voting...

OK. First a question: What do we music lovers need???


Value lads. Value! These sets have that more than any other releases. Lets take stock shall we?


Foremost: Meticulous & fabulous & crystal clear 5.1 mix by "you know who"

Added bonus material that redefines "bonus material" In the case of a classic live concert!

Physical Product!!!! What the foolish. ignorant & greedy music industry has refused to give us since that short haired little bugger(Bono) convinced the world he was saving humanity by "banning the box"... Remember??? We used to get nice tall boxes full of lovely ART along with our CDs!

Point is: We want a physical product to rub in our grubby little fingers and smell and stare at endlessly while the music plays. It did help up get absorbed into the music. This is why vinyl records have made such a comeback.

OK. Physical product? No prob! These tall boxes are packed full of discs, pages and photos and lots of wonderful anecdotes, which we live for!

To understand how great these Tull issues are we need to understand why CDs sucked so much. CDs failed not because of the underlying digital tech(more on that to come, Lads.) CDs stunk up the joint because...... wait for it......


No packaging for us to unloose all our dreams & imagination upon! And....

Inferior musical production. Many many times sourcing with late generation tape copies and even worse, tapes mastered for vinyl which sound like s%it when played pre-vinyl stamping(Thanks Neil Wilkes for proving to us what our ears have told us for decades.)

The digital sampling tech of CDs is actually fabulous for a one time analog to digital conversion. Higher digital bit rates shine for processing, when the processor or effect is actually digital software and you are running a digital sound file through that file and all kinds of neat things that you can read about here:

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_1bv2b

The USN taught me digital sampling back in the day and I can almost keep up with all that this very bright lad has to say here, but I do understand it to ring true. See.... CDs tech by itself was never a bad thing. Fact is the DTS compressed tech used here would be inferior to 5 streams of 16/44, alas a CD has space for only 2 streams of 16/44 not the needed 5...

-after what seems like hours later...

A voice from the crowd: But will he ever stop rambling???

DennisMoore Jr: Soon! But not - quite - yet...


Point is:

These Tull collections for the $$$ one must fork over represent unprecedented value. They represent a TON of hard work from many groups of people, along with the original artist, all for our enjoyment.

I can't think of a better manifestation of pure physical product joy delivered from our global capitalist greed driven machine.


Cheers!

DennisMoore Jr.


P.S. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the inconvenient truth that purchasing this collection along with any thing else we do in life is nothing more than the mere passing of time while we wait for Songs From The Wood. The third movement in Ian Anderson's Holy Trinity.

Aqualung - Thick As A Brick - Songs From The Wood


:sun :sun :sun

Came in the mail the same day as "Benefit" and after the first spin I'm leaning a strong 9. Mix and fidelity are everything you would expect from SW, a 10 all the way. I just can't get away from "Benefit" long enough to give it the thorough listen it deserves.

Having a tough time rating this one, it was never an album I played much. But with the overwhelmingly high marks I keep feeling that I have missed something. I Got this disc about 5-6 weeks ago and have played it at least a dozen times but just cant seem to get into it like I do with "Benefit" or "TAAB". Gonna give it a bit more time...maybe I have JeT lag

jdholman said:

Having a tough time rating this one, it was never an album I played much. But with the overwhelmingly high marks I keep feeling that I have missed something. I Got this disc about 5-6 weeks ago and have played it at least a dozen times but just cant seem to get into it like I do with "Benefit" or "TAAB". Gonna give it a bit more time...maybe I have JeT lag

Click to expand...

It's funny, because I was the exact opposite. Minstrel has always been my absolute favorite Tull, with One White Duck being one of his saddest, most beautiful, and personal songs; and Baker St. Muse, is just... epic. Just the coolest song. I can't even begin to explain this song; it's ineffable (IMO, of course). Baker is not only my favorite Tull song, but just one of my favorite songs from any artist. And hearing it in surround the first time just blew my mind!:nuke

Benefit, on the other hand, has always been difficult, but it's definitely grown on me. I think, mainly because of the surround mix, I was much more willing to spend the time it needed to grow. It's certainly essential Tull, and has some absolute classics.

I just realized I never rated this. I'm going with an 11.

I have to say that I enjoy the DTS quad mix better than the DTS 5.1 and the 96/24 flat transfer of the original stereo album better than the quad. Also, it's worth noting that the 96/24 original stereo flat transfer is a huge improvement over the 2002 digital remaster with its stridently boxy and unappealing sounding bass.

For one thing the transition on the flat transfers between the acoustic and electric elements is much better integrated than in the remix, where the transition is particularly jarring. Also, it seems like the EQ on the remixes was set for the all acoustic parts and then simply carried over for the rest of it all. The result is a remix that is much too bright and too bassy for my tastes. I simply dislike the sound quality. Which is a real shame given how lovely the album truly is.

So for me, for the sake of the surround experience, the original quad is the better of the 5.1 remix. However, the best bet here is the original flat-transferred album at 96/24. Luckily, they were included in the package.

content 3/3, 5.1 mix 2/3, 5.1 fidelity 1/3, package +1

I'm loving this disc. As for the material, if the acoustic side of Jethro Tull, punctuated with great electric guitars and drums, is what attracts you, then this is a disc you can't overlook. The 5.1 mix is fabulous.

There doesn't seem to be thread that talks about these releases in stereo, so I'm going to ask my question here.
If the 5.1 fans are offended then so be it

Has anyone had problems with the SW remix of the BBC version of Aqualung in 2.0?
Mine is clicking and skipping at the beginning

Having just recently joined this excellent site, this is my first official poll vote. As such, even though I'm totally blown away by this incredible SW 5.1 offering, I'm going with a 9 to ensure I have room to 'grow' for future, out-of-this-world mixes we have yet to enjoy.

Growing up in the 70s, my Tull favs were early releases Stand Up, Aqualung, and TAAB. By the time their subsequent 70s albums materialized, I was so heavily immersed in ensuring I didn't flunk out of my engineering studies, I honestly missed out on it. In retrospect, Minstrel is a great album in its own right and a more than fine addition to their incredible musical legacy!

Wilson has really done a superb job on this 5.1 mix. I really love his insistence on maintaining a flat transfer, which allows cranking this to the desired volume level with zero fatigue or shrillness. Once you crank this puppy to the sweet spot, it simply sounds unreal! Every instrument is clearly delineated and the overall sound is all encompassing and very present. WOW! I'll admit I was initially reluctant purchasing these due to their lossy nature, but that pre-conception went out the window when I first pumped the volume on the Aqualung release in this series.

To say nothing of the incredible extras here - the book alone is priceless and Martin Webb deserves major kudos for his unflagging pursuit of the verbiage necessary to properly situate us in the 'moment', so to speak. Thank you, Mr. Webb!

WOW!!!

Thanks to all who posted reviews. I just ordered this from Discogs.

Received this a few days ago and finally gave it a listen. It's ok but not my cup of tea. I'm Tull fan, love Aqua and TAAB. This album has some great guitar riffing but doesn't have the song quality that the other referenced albums have. As far as the sonics go, it's ok, not great, there's something not quite right when I compare it to other 5.1 audio discs I have. Maybe it's the DTS?? I gave it a 5. I prefer the quad mix and if I could I would rate it higher. The packaging, box, booklet etc..are very nice. Have not watched the video content yet.

Daniel John said:

Received this a few days ago and finally gave it a listen. It's ok but not my cup of tea. I'm Tull fan, love Aqua and TAAB. This album has some great guitar riffing but doesn't have the song quality that the other referenced albums have. As far as the sonics go, it's ok, not great, there's something not quite right when I compare it to other 5.1 audio discs I have. Maybe it's the DTS?? I gave it a 5. I prefer the quad mix and if I could I would rate it higher. The packaging, box, booklet etc..are very nice. Have not watched the video content yet.

Click to expand...

Damn DJ! You are a hard sell. That's cool though, everyone has their opinions. [emoji1303]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daniel John said:

Received this a few days ago and finally gave it a listen. It's ok but not my cup of tea. I'm Tull fan, love Aqua and TAAB. This album has some great guitar riffing but doesn't have the song quality that the other referenced albums have. As far as the sonics go, it's ok, not great, there's something not quite right when I compare it to other 5.1 audio discs I have. Maybe it's the DTS?? I gave it a 5. I prefer the quad mix and if I could I would rate it higher. The packaging, box, booklet etc..are very nice. Have not watched the video content yet.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you didn't listen to this album on YouTube before you ordered it.

wavelength said:

I'm surprised you didn't listen to this album on YouTube before you ordered it.

Click to expand...

Who knows it may grow on me. I probably should've waited before casting my vote. But I voted on the sonics and less so on the material. It just doesn't have the crisp, clear sonics that I prefer. Sounds over processed.

GOS said:

Damn DJ! You are a hard sell. That's cool though, everyone has their opinions. [emoji1303]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Hahaha! Yeah, maybe I'm being a bit tough on good old Tull here but I was expecting more...

How did I not vote for this one? I plead temporary insanity @:. Sounds great, tastes better and even more so in the surround, an easy 9.

Hoo boy! I know I'm in the minority here, but I had to give this a 7 based on the fact that this is my least favorite of the Tull releases. I have all the LP's up thru Bursting Out and remembered that I didn't much care for MITG so I passed on the SW 5.1 bookset when it was first released. After much flip-flopping I caved in and ordered it when I ordered Songs From The Wood (mainly because it was the only one with Jeffrey H-H that I didn't have). I listened to it again yesterday, and as always SW did a fine job. Just not my cup of tea songwise. :couch

One of my favorite Tull albums. Just like the album used to get better with every spin, that happened to me again with this Steven Wilson mix. Very entertaining. 10.