Problem with 'blind test' and 'consistently' is to do more so with the equipment and listening environment.
I am into audio and have the good fortune to have a system which reveals the differences. It would be in the top 1-2% of stereos around the globe. When friends who previously were adamant that the difference was nil, listen to said files on this system, they nearly drop their jaw in the first few seconds. It is night and day obvious. Certain genres have greater payoffs/more overt in the difference (many instruments/orchestras for example).
Even before my teenage years it dawned on me how much 'bang for buck' headphone setups could get, vs performance 'high fidelity' gear, and think therefor that this forum would likely have an excellent spread of users, with varying setups, more likely for critical listening.
problem is on the internet, voice being free and easy to offer, and the masses, if elegant in their argument, can derail the truth (because THEY haven't experienced it).. Sure we can argue subjectiveness. We can argue about the variance in two people hearing..
We CAN argue..
Or we can accept the very real advantage that uncompressed offers with the only drawback being the space taken up.
I grew up with portable cd players, before CD wallets even. Carrying multiple discs was a pain.
Today, I have no problem carrying an 8GB portable player with uncompressed albums on it. It still holds more music than I will need before the battery drains out, and is smaller than a packet of tictacs.
I did explain that 1200+ cds ripped in a lossless compressed format filled around 300GBs, so I find it hard to understand what the problem is for reference storage.
but sure if some low capacity "i device" needs to have all the worlds music for wonderful random play, drop the last little bit of detail. No one
will care. No one will be listening critically to it.
In a world of compressed music playing through modern garbage AV receivers (some with digital restoration of the 'lost data'), sound files don't sound different to each other, in a meaningful way, anyway. Most people haven't really heard the music. A lot of amplifiers built before the late eighties introduction of the integrated circuit, offer a real bang for buck advantage offer setups now mostly designed for compressed movie soundtracks. Even running quality power amps and speakers off $1800 pricepoint audio visual receiver, back in the late nighties, hearing the difference between Dolby digital and dts was something to strain to hear. Improving that front end to flagship receiver, and wow, I'd take Dolby digital or dts through that (lossy formats) rather than dts master audio or the new highend formats through a crap $600 surround system. I hear so much more detail, beautifully nuanced on the better gear, even with the low bitrate version versions.
If you want actual feedback on how these things sound, get a top tier setup, setup properly (room acoustical control matters, positioning etc), play familiar tracks, and blind test away. You might finds these results worth a grain of salt, or better. Will it help you convince anyone or be worth the time? Anyhow I'd rather enjoy the music, so 'statistically' belong to the people who generally don't sell ourselves as top dogs or big shots, prefering to sit back and ENJOY the music.
writing on my phone, very hard to edit, but I use the term uncompressed here to represent lossless formats. I do use lossless compressed file formats to save 25%-50% of the storage space wherever possible (not all playback devices support all if these file formats).