Ive refinished hardwood floors for over 10 years. And while both maple and white oak have differences its mostly down to color that seperates them. Maple is "harder" based off the Janka rating system used by industry. But dont be fool all wood will dent if something is dropped. But back to color. Yes maple is lighter in natural tone but doesnt accept staining well. It can be done and look good but not as evenly as oak does. Oak is of course darker and also has thicker grains then maple. If you are going natural with the finish i personally like white oak over maple. Maple tends to become too orange as the floor ambers over time.

we just installed rift and quartered white oak throughout the house and finished with waterlox. the floors are spectacular. the linear grain of the WO is soft, yet varied, and the flecking of the quartersawn adds tremendous depth and beauty. Waterlox actually warms the none of the wood without imparting any noticeable color, and you can, if you like, add a little oil based stain to the first coat to add a little tint if you like. the WO has none of the agitation of face sawn RO, and feels much finer and older somehow. I live in LA, where red oak is common, and these floors are more beautiful than anything else around. so yummy you could sleep on them.

The end product when you saw logs at the mill is only slightly under the sawyer's control, because the growth rings/grain vary at points throughout the log. Only riftsawn veneer is a reliable way to get that one particular grain format, because they cull through hundreds of pieces and get the veneer mill running just right. In 1890, they had enormous white oak tree trunks to pick through, which yielded unimaginably (in 2000's) wide and flecky planks of Q-sawn. If you want picture perfect matched rift grain, either use veneer or be prepared to have the costs skyrocket, because the cabinetmaker will have to pick through piles of lumber to get the best matching grain.

Did they put a stain on the new section to try to make it match the old section? And did they refinish the wood floors in the old section at the same time, or just finish the new flooring? I am far from an expert in flooring, but it almost looks the there is a difference in stain or type of finish rather than a difference that is based on how the the boards are sawn. When we bought our house 5 years ago, it came with 60 year old red oak in our living and dining rooms that looks very similar in color to your old section. In two separate renovations since then, we replaced the floor in two adjacent rooms to match. In both cases, there is far less color difference than you see in yours. In the first case of our family room, it was a dead on match and you would never be able to tell at first glance from the color that the family room and living room were installed 60 years apart. In the second case, our new kitchen floor ended up being just a hair lighter than the existing floor, but it’s a pretty subtle difference that might be exaggerated by a bit of an optical illusion due to chance — the doorway where the kitchen and dining room meet ended up with the new section having a couple of the lightest boards butt up against a a couple of the darkest boards from the old section. In your case, I’d be tempted to get a second opinion from a flooring contractor to see if there is anything that could be done stain or finish-wise to better make the woods match, or if it is really a difference in the character of the wood, or the way the boards were sawn. EDIT: Added photos to give you a sense of how close the matches in our house are. First photo is living room/family room, other two are the kitchen.