..This isn't convincing. Because there is no discussion of what this information might be or of the large difference between a 320 lame and 64 old-skool mp3. Even worse, there's no discussion of the fact that no one can tell (i.e. in a blind test rather than in their imagination) the difference between 320 aac/mp3/ogg and cd/wav/flac. If soundstage was so different wouldn't this in fact be very easy?
But that's the point - those FLACs that have been converted from MP3 are not true flac files (only in name), and if you had acquired your FLAC files from legitimate sources, you wouldn't be making this point.
In public forums people talk in absolutes, with the expectation that we're all talking about the same legitimate things. Your point on flac files bent those rules to accept something outside of those constraints.
An illegally (and falsely named) downloaded flac file is sure to create a bad argument.
I was speaking solely in terms of scuttle's post, I was in no way speaking of realistic situations, just the situation brought up by scuttle.