So @TheSonicTruth reminds us of his passion (which most of us already know)... and tells us he thinks he can look at waveforms to see that different versions of a song will sound different. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, even if it's wrong. For him to understand, an explanation of why his assumption is wrong must be clear to him. I seem to recall several "tellings", but none stuck; I assume because they were not made clearly enough for @TheSonicTruth . @bigshot continues, but discusses "quality", not "difference". @TheSonicTruth knows that if the waveforms look different, the waveforms ARE different, but goes on to assume that necessarily means they will sound different. He makes clear he means "different" NOT "Inferiority or superiority". I understand the frustration... when some things have been explained and @TheSonicTruth stubbornly contradicts some facts, you (and others) lose interest in further explanations. But you mixed difference with quality, so he answered. But, nearly a year later, he asks nicely for the explanation you offered contingent upon his listening. He's willing to listen: And this counts as the explanation!?!? Sheesh! @TheSonicTruth: It's late here and I'm going to sleep soon. But here is a quick and simple-minded attempt: you know 30kHz is an example of something inaudible, right? So let's use that as an example, a placeholder, for everything inaudible, for now. Imagine I take the signal from the top of your avatar and ADD to it: (a 30kHz signal with the envelope of the bottom of your avatar MINUS a 30kHz signal with the envelope of the top of your avatar). That may look quite strange zoomed in, but all scrunched up, it should look like the bottom of your avatar. ...AND!!! sound identical to the top to human ears. I have no doubt there are errors in my example (I'm half asleep!), but do you get what I'm trying to say? The different envelopes may look different, and the waveforms are different, but they sound the same, because the differences are not audible.