Instant comparability is always a good thing. We humans are notoriously bad at graphs and scales, with zero intuition for it. We have to switch on our "highest" brain every time and be rigorous and check the scale and numbers, are we not to get things wrong from what we see at first glance and make interpretation mistakes.That graph is 25 dB/decade. As already said, they did show 50 dB span, but with aspect ratio of 25 dB/decade so text and Figure 4 in CTA-2034-A R-2020 are in conflict. Just reminding again that your 32 dB/decade is in conflict with both standards.
Comparability of the content is relevant. Not how high the canvas is. For example, these three with different spans have the same data, aspect ratio and width i.e. they have the same shape and are comparable. Just useless empty space between DIs and others is different.
View attachment 531720
View attachment 531721
View attachment 531722
The last one follows CTA-2034-A R-2020 the most literally, but it's also the least effective due to useless space. Why should we consume more server space and force users to scroll vertically if there is no reason?
Good grief...
That's why "manipulating" graphs by skewing them works so well in the first place!
Anything making it easier is good. 20% bigger image filesize and one second longer scrolling, that's a good trade if you ask me.