Hello...?

No-one has actually ripped a CD they are intimately familiar with? And compared the two?

Sure you have. So, presumably, you know what the encoding process does to the sound, yes?

So, how come you are not able to accurately estimate what the REAL sound is, if listening to an mp3 of known bitrate and encoder?

I just don't get it... Ella Fitzgerald, recorded direct to vinyl, sounds far better than Ashley Simpson on SACD (24/96 or better). You don't need perfect, pristine audio to be able to make a value judgment about her singing. So how come you can't get an accurate impression of an arranger using an mp3 that compromises the sound FAR less than thirties recording technology and delivery?

This just basically stinks of a 'last resort' argument that occurs when one with any intrinsic value fails to be available.