I was considering buying Riven and was doing some research of running it in scummvm and thus in my android phone.

Then I've stumbled upon this:
https://www.gog.com/forum/myst_series/gog_version_is_using_inferior_audio

Apparently the CD version of the game which is downloaded from website is with inferior CD quality instead of DVD. Do I understand this correctly?

I don't even have Windows to run Galaxy to download the proper DVD version.

The version downloaded via browser and via galaxy should be Exactly the same. There is no galaxy specific installer for this game, and if there was then the only difference would be that you could download the classic or with galaxy installer from the website.

The post linked in the last post of the thread the OP has linked to suggests otherwise.

If that is true, then I for one demand a refund. It clearly states that galaxy is totally optional, if what that says is true and galaxy users are getting special treatment, then is a big problem for a fair bit of the userbase.
Perhaps best to wait for a blue to comment or put a support ticket in.

Let's hope it's just an oversight. Right, GOG.com?

Let me go install and check. Back in a few.

Edit: Installer 2.0.0.14 used, t_data1.mhk and t_data2.mhk are not installed. Installing from Galaxy does seem to be downloading those files, so there does seem to be a discrepancy. Best poke support for it then.

Thanks for checking it up.

I will contact them. They just probably have outdated version on website download. Unfortunate, but not a big deal. I hope.

Why would you immediately jump to Galaxy users getting special treatment rather than recognizing it was probably an honest mistake?

Galaxy and the site installers are stored differently, probably in a completely different repo. The person who uploaded the build to Galaxy was probably a different person than the person who uploaded the standalone installer, most likely said person didn't realize it wasn't the same build.

Hopefully once the OP contacts support the issue will be resolved.

Look at that post referenced, it was pointed out end 2016. I understand you want galaxy, some of us see I it as a problem, this is a clear example of galaxy users getting superior treatment to those who don't use it. Much like updates working only in galaxy, much like if there hadn't been an outcry there wouldn't be classic installers, just galaxy. Just like the site is filling up with shovelware, just like everything else that has been noticed since the move towards a client driven steam like e perience, which you love to jump n on every single post and defend it.
As such I have been as civil as I am going to be.

And did anyone ever contact support? Probablly not. We sat for days with a broken site during the last major sale on certain browsers and nobody contacted support. Everyone was complaining in the forum but nobody bothered until I did so on a Friday and by Monday it was fixed. Saying it is superior treatment implies it is intentional which you don't know... Updates have never only worked in Galaxy and was never planned that way. GOG always said updates would be quicker in Galaxy and that is because clients integrate directly with the games, something you can't easly mimic on the website.

And as far as classic installers, even if let's say the Galaxy bundled installers were the only option you could still install the game without Galaxy which was the plan from the get go. I would have prefered they were opt-in rather than opt-out sure but it's not that big of a deal. Regardless I'm not disspointed to see classic installers if it makes some people happy. You mean like you have in bashing Galaxy in a few of my post... right? I'm not defending anything, I hope it get's fixed. I'm just wondering why your first instict is to lash out rather than think about it logically for a min.

There's another case where it was the non-Galaxy version of a game that worked better: http://mantis.gog.com/view.php?id=1159 I've no idea what might cause such a discrepancy.

What is the name of the game and the problem with? Maybe we can collect all these problems in one thread.
The link you've sent requires authentication even when I'm already signed into gog. Strange. What's that link to?

Arcanum, and different executable. There was a comment that the client version was out of date, unsure if it still is or not.

GOG's Bug Tracker. And it does need you to authenticate again, just to make sure that it is you and not just someone who found a logged in account.

Basically the blues closed a load of open tickets saying, this was filed under a previous Galaxy version, we aren't going to investigate all these, open a new ticket if the problem still exists. That ticket was among them even though the version of Arcanum's executable lacks any obvious connection to the client's version. Not surprisingly I haven't felt motivated to mess about with my Arcanum installation again in order to find out whether the discrepancy does still exist.

Yes, GOG has repeatedly said that, but we're not talking about a few days, or a week or two here. It's been a year - let me stress this one more time, one year - and that's counting only from the date of the post that mentions the difference/discrepancy, i.e. not proof that's the actual point in time it came to be. Is this really an acceptable time delay that one can apply the "GOG always said updates would be quicker in Galaxy" argument to?

As for contacting GOG Support - no, it doesn't work that way. Those that have purchased the game shouldn't have to compare installations and contact GOG Support in order for GOG to do a job they should have done many months ago.
The people handling updates for standalone installers may be different from those handling GOG Galaxy updates. Still, I think it's reasonable to assume that they all have access to the (same?) content provided by the devs/pubs. I think it's also reasonable to assume that they're all supervised by someone. And it's also reasonable to assume that since this particular update made it into GOG Galaxy, there was, or at least there should have been, a plan/schedule to also get it into the standalone installers. Yet, one whole year later, the standalone installers have not been updated to include it, and short of this thread and the action taken by the OP that may trigger some reaction from GOG, they'd most likely have remained outdated and inferior.
So, I have to assume that neither those tasked with updating the installers, nor the one(s) supervising them, bothered, for whatever reason. And I say "whatever reason" because, at this point, it doesn't matter whether the discrepancy came to be due to intent, neglect, or oversight; after a year's delay and with no indication/evidence they'd ever update them, it's simply unprofessional, inexcusable and indefensible.