If you are refuting something your own experience didn't hold true, you're literally diregarding yourself and what you heard yourself. If you, as an average user will hear the difference, then why would you assume other average users wouldn't.

I test things with a sample of around 35 people before making a "most people" argument, and the rate of success of a test must be over 70% , and usually 80%. For Mp3 vs flac, the rate with which they could tell the differences and which was superior was 75% with metal, 50% with classical (no bias, they couldn't really do it), and around 65% with pop, the Mp3 compresion algorithm clearly has a bias towards making changes that are not audible with classical but can show in highly dynamically compressed music such as rock or pop. The test we did was with Mp3 320CBR vs flac, and it was done using both speakers and headphones, both of which setups were midrange to get what a true average user would be like. The people were mostly young listeners, under 35.

Ogg at lvl q-10 is truly audibly transparent, no user including me can't tell OGG Q10 vs lossless apart, regardless of the music style.

I am not saying there is no lossy audibly transparent codec, but I know from experiment that Mp3 especially at 256 vbr is not audibly transparent if straining music is used, like dynamically compressed metal music. I think that if I mainly listened to jazz or classical, I probably could not tell them apart well, mp3 256 vs flac, even in my tests most users can't. But with rock and metal, they can, there's a strong bias towards those musisc styles in my articles too, since that's what composes most of my test playlist.

For the sake of experiments, try to experiment before leaning too much on other's statements.