mmm thanks for the derogatory tone in your post.... To be honest everything I said is 100% correct... Not really interested in arguing about it, but as I already said 320kbps is fine and can not always be A/B from FLAC, 128 and 192 are just bad, 256 is sometimes *ok*, FLAC does sound noticeably better than 320kbps most of the time with good recordings, using more expensive headphones the differences become a lot more obvious, sorry but what I have said is 100% correct and you probably don't know what you are talking about.
Actually he does know what he's talking about Nicholars. Lame has got to the point that at 256 kbps and above it's pretty much transparent at this stage (there are a few "killer" tracks that will defeat the encoder - but these are few and far between). aac is even better - at aac256 it is definitely transparent. If encoded properly without introducing encoding artifacts. The idea that you can easily tell suggests that:
[a] Last time you tested was years ago with an inferior encoder
[b] You are not being entirely honest
[c[ You are not human
**please note - I am not being derogatory here - I'm merely stating fact as we know it within tested human limitations**
The problem with saying "I don't need to test myself" is that actually you do. Here's a how to - http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding. The software is free. All it costs is time. As humans, we need to remove as much bias as we can - so that means unsighted, volume matched. Fortunately the link I've listed gets you started.
Of course you are free to state that there is no need for you to do it, and that you can easily tell. But your in Sound Science, and we equally have the right to ask for proof.
If you want a real laugh - go and make those claims over at hydrogenaudio. The replies would be interesting ......