To me, yes. It sounds different. My opinion is also supported (as listening is personal making it hard to share with others) by ISRC and acoustIDs. Additionally, it is supported by the releases using it marking them as the remastered versions, not all tracks, 3 are not remastered, the rest are… per the indications on track titles.
All I am wanting to do with the edit is to have separate recordings for the release, which is what I had intended when I added the data. I did not see the fact that all the recordings were in a merge, otherwise, I would have just made it all new and this issue would not be here.
I guess this also needs to be defined. What is significant and what is not? For me, a non-stop party mix is NOT significant as the actual song is not changed, it is just blended for a few seconds at beginning and end. But for reosarevok, this is significant. For me, a remaster changing the quality and thus the sound of a recording is significant, but to reosarevok it is not.
It all depends on what you like, what you listen to, how good your hearing is, etc. The acoustIDs look at their parts, humans look at theirs individually, etc. There is a popular example of a Paul Simon remaster. The remaster is aweful (in my opinion and a large group of others), but to some it is good. Some people are more… is it loud? louder than others? Yes, ok it is good. … While others listen and hear no dynamic range, a lot of compression and other factors that can make it poor to some… some even say unlistenable. At the same time, there are some remasters that are almost senseless, and those do not need a new recording at all, regardless of title or ISRC.