I don't think that anybody can differentiate 192khz files from 44.1khz files. I'm just trying to use the evidence I can personally provide to demonstrate to OP an inconsistency in their own belief.
I use Foobar as my audio player. I might do that at some point, but not just now. I just took a break form listening to Nick Drake's Pink Moon for the first time on my new setup. What I am about to say is not scientific in anyway because this is the first time I have listened to the file since making a major change to my audio chain. The reason I took a break is that I wanted to tell everybody that the third string on the guitar he is playing the the song Know has loose tuning pegs. I think it's the third string, that's the string I would use to play the bass note. I am going to test this tomorrow because I am just as interested in the answer as you are, but I do not believe that I will hear that in an 128 kb MP3 of the song. That's the kind of detail that I'm talking about, very specific things that you can point at.
For a slightly more grounded example, I have had things that I listened to for a decade in 128 MP3. A few years back I started re-ripping my CDs to FLAC, primarily for archiving purposes because I was skeptical about the quality increase beyond 320 kb MP3. I could hear new instruments in some recordings, especially later Beatles. Not a fuller sound, not clearer sound, not less distorted sound. Entire instruments which, in the 128 kbps MP3 version, had been compressed out to the point where you could only hear them if you already knew exactly what they sounded like and were actively listening for them.
I really don't want to come off as confrontational. I entirely understand the feeling that most of this is placebo because I have absolutely been there, and still am about most things in consumer audio. The only reason I am this confident is because over the years I have come across this kind of very specific detail comparing to MP3s from a variety of sources.