The point you're making is sound. There are however some caveats. I didn't say "better", i said "higher quality". IMO just "higher frequencies" is misleading, "additional higher frequencies" makes sense.
both rips are effectively the same bitrate
You see, they're not. You haven't done your research there, you just compared the file sizes. ;) (I'm only comparing disc 2 because i didn't download disc 1 as it's the DS OST which i've already got.) Gamemp3s' rip is consistently higher bitrate (30 kbps on average), so there's room for that additional frequency range, while the french rip is almost exactly the same size because of bigger tags.
I've taken a small listen and predictably couldn't find an audible difference in quality. The french rip still has minute response (practically cut off flat) above 20 kHz; while gamemp3s' rip rolls off from 20 kHz to 22 kHz, that additional 2 kHz is transition band: "signals must be low-pass filtered before sampling, otherwise aliasing occurs, and, while an ideal low-pass filter would perfectly pass frequencies below 20 kHz (without attenuating them) and perfectly cut off frequencies above 20 kHz, in practice a transition band is necessary, where frequencies are partly attenuated. The wider this transition band is, the easier and more economical it is to make an anti-aliasing filter. The 44.1 kHz sampling frequency allows for a 2.05 kHz transition band." (Wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz)).
So because of these, the gamemp3s rip should be the more efficient and higher quality one.
I'm sure anyone would be hard pressed to find aural improvement in a FLAC over these, in a blind test. However we must not forget that ever improving and more modern codecs tend to be more and more efficient than older ones: things like the addition of quality-based true vbr to LAME; or the AAC codec itself which "was designed to be the successor of the MP3 format and it generally achieves better sound quality than MP3 at similar bit rates." (Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding) and source (
http://www.telos-systems.com/techtalk/hosted/Brandenburg_mp3_aac.pdf))
I also saw you originally included "Encoding anything over 16khz, particularly if efficient compression is the intended goal, makes very little sense." in your post. "In humans, the audible range of frequencies is usually 20 to 20,000 Hz, although there is considerable variation between individuals, especially at high frequencies, where a gradual decline with age is considered normal." (Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range)) CDs, FLAC and other lossless formats intend to perfectly cover that range above 16 kHz for such reasons. And i'm pretty sure there are people with even better hearing than that (as in any other field). So on top of that come the arguments of SACD, DVD-A, higher dynamic range, ultra-wide frequency ranges in source and in all kinds of equipment down to headphones. So apparently there is sense in and demand for not only above 16 kHz but even above 20 kHz. It just requires acute hearing, focused attention, high quality source- and equipment. People still want FLACs even if they can't obviously or definitely hear the improvement, it's the case of diminishing returns.
All in all, i agree with you that comparisons can't be based just on numbers on spec sheets. I'm still of the opinion that the gamemp3s rip is higher quality, because it uses a newer (and thus presumably improved) version of the same codec, in a higher quality mode; even if however the aural difference is practically indiscernible. At the same time, it may be you who's right. And so that's why i offered it as an alternative, much like yunalesca23 who offered a FLAC/AC3 complete game rip (which is "480000Hz music" — i suppose that's sampling rate). Now that we've collectively discovered the differences, it's easier to choose, based on individual preference. :)
