There's a few similar listening tests online.
The one you posted I got 4/6 correct using laptop earbuds. One incorrect choice I picked 128kbps, but rushed that one a bit... the other I selected 320kbps, which was basically indiscernible from the WAV. I listened to each sample, comparing, at least 10 times each and there are differences, but very subtle... need to listen for certain things. Correct and sounding "better" doesn't always equate either, depends on the music and what sound you're trying to isolate. It's easier to pick 128kbps out as more different than 320kbps or the WAV, for me.
You or others may way to try some of these which are more ABX than pick which is labelled what;
http://abx.digitalfeed.net/list.html
I just tried 96kbps to start and got all correct over 20 tests as it's easy to hear the compression at such a low bitrate, sounds horrible and empty;
View attachment 133553
Going to 128kbps using the laptop and earbuds still was more difficult, but able to pick differences, however the music had some life back in it;
View attachment 133554
Onto 160kbps and believe it or not I got exactly the same score as 128kbps, same differences to listen for but less prominent;
View attachment 133564
However... once I got to 192kbps it was a different story;
View attachment 133565
I still thought I could hear some of the changes I did earlier at a much reduced level... but the results show otherwise, more flip of the coin. Either that or listening fatigue (especially the same small sample over and over), maybe concentration lapsing. 160kbps seems like a compromise between 128kbps and 192kbps.
I've spent a few hours doing this with short breaks here and there. As I progress through the test the differences I hear become harder to pick, seems around after 4 or 5 attempts it starts for me... if take a break for 5 or so mins it becomes easier again. I put this down to auditory memory, where my brain knows I've listened to this over and over. It knows the "easier" sound, so based on the memory of it, fills in the perception loss... but after the 5 or so mins break that fades, which IMO is why the difference becomes more apparent again. So yeah stopping for now and will try the higher bitrate tests another time using proper headphones.
What is funny though (and expected) is it's easier to hear the distortion in these earbuds than the differences in A/B when critically listening.
The Killers sample is quite apt... starts with "simple", middle "what are you made of" and ends with "running out of time".
Whilst this is fun from a personal testing perspective, it's not doing or finding anything new in general whatsoever...
Exactly what needs to be retained to preserve perceptuality is retained though for almost all listening situations, most equipment and music, even with a "lossy" codec like MP3 encoded at 320kbps (assuming the encoder is doing it's job properly).
Many people are just listening to music streams or files using cheapo earbuds on a phone... so those that say there is no case for audio compression algorithms clearly are out on a limb as most phone accounts have data limits/caps. Not all countries have high speed data connections available either and not everyone can afford large data plans. Even though FLAC compresses, it's not efficient (I know it's not meant to be) and thus still takes up unnecessary data bandwidth or storage space, encoding unnecessary or non-existent inaudible higher frequency components.
JSmith