No, I firmly stand by my statement. You cannot judge audio quality based on graphs, be it FFT or otherwise.
That the OP would decide to undermine his own topic by raising the (non-issue) of sound quality is more than just a bit awkward.
They are 24/96 files though - do they need to be, is the question. Would you be complaining about a 44.1kHz file if it only used 20kHz of bandwidth? Or when a CD doesn't utilize all 16 bits of dynamic range?I assume HDtracks contact studios for the the files. This is most likely what the studio supplied. There is likely no hires master available (although I assume the dithering is different in these files.)You think that 96kHz implies there should be higher frequencies - it does not. I look at it this way - if we're sure that 44.1kHz is enough (and it is), why are we criticizing a production that does not contain higher frequencies? Or is this a this a technical criticism? The engineer could have saved space by only exporting at 44.1? Would this recording be better if you could see the frequencies above 22.05kHz? No.
Well, would you get pissed if you bought a 50cl bottle of Coca-Cola to find out that it has only been filled up to 33cl?
The second file in the sampler is not pictured because despite being identified as a 24/96 FLAC, it is in fact a 44 KHz FLAC.
At http://www.hdtracks.com/hdtracks-2017-hi-res-sampler it is advertised as "2 Light This Party Up 02:24 44.1/24 "although they may of course have called it "96" elsewhere. Since HDtracks invites me to run an application called "HDtracksDownloader.exe", I don't have the download.