I thought this as well, but if you look above, this is proven untrue. If it is specifically meant to “produce the same AcoustID for lossy audio”, it does not do this. The release noted in that portion is proof of this.
Honestly, I like how AcoustID is working, now that I am testing it myself. It is quite nice, and I actually would like a tool to generate this ID, in GUI, locally, to generate these myself. I know there is a tool, a fingerprint GUI, but it only generates them to submit, not save local. I might need to create this myself.
I mean not to argue, I am simply discussing what I am finding in the process of trying to add these releases. What I have discovered is not at all what I was expecting and understood to be true.
I am still trying to think and wrap my head around all this, so any input is welcome. Just because I am generating results does not mean that these results are “scientific”. I am trying now to determine what exactly causes the fingerprinting process to see a WAV different from MP3. The files in the initial post are both DJ supplied, WAV used to make MP3. The MP3 is of reasonable quality, only using the soft 16kHz filter. If it used the hard filter, I would be more confident as to why the difference. I know that @IvanDobsky commented above that in his looking, the two fingerprints looked nearly identical, only small variation. If I recall correctly, the artist who produced this release uses Serato, so quality of product should be there.
Again, I mean no disrespect here. I am simply doing what I said I was going to do, try to add some of these releases. Given that, I can only share what I see in the process.