While the ears are a marvelous thing, as a scientist, I would suggest that something a bit more objective rather than subjective would be needed. There is such a wide range of hearing that five people in a room won't hear exactly the same thing. So I would rather see a comparison done using software that can capture waveforms, and time points. That would give a better and more reliable result than ears. I would also 'argue' that you would need to have more of a difference than the first few bars sounding slightly different to call it a different version. I would support the position that it would not be a new track based solely on recording format. The original was the same. Supporting the idea that it would be a new recording would be a bit like saying that even the parks are not using the same recordings any longer. look at Pirates of the Caribbean, the original recordings were not made directly to a digital recorder. Yet each sound effect, each song, is now stored on chips on the Disney computer system. So we would be calling that a separate recording too, when obviously they are not. Or even saying that once I have ripped as song to my computer it is now different, and when it goes onto my i Pod, it is different again. I believe that changes would need to be intentional, something that a sound engineer would need to make a conscious effort to change. Something that changes the song itself.