FLAC audio just placebo or worth its money?

My "experience"

64kbps - artifacts here and there, sounds "cheap", "tinny", etc.
128kbps MP3 - No more artifacts, most details available
320kbps MP3 - The guitar in the background continues to be emphasized, sounds "high quality"

FLAC (44.1khz 16bit) - I (think) "feel" slightly more full, a little bit more contrast, bass is less "blurry" and less tired compared to the compressed copies. But I had to crawl into the living room, close the windows, press volume +2, headphones on the ears and concentrate almost meditatively on the tracks, otherwise 320kbps sounded the same as FLAC - sometimes (rarely) even 128kbps in this "transparent" league.

You can get 128kbps free anywhere, 320kbps is still free to get, albeit legally - let's put it that way: Funny. FLAC is premium and then finally worth something - if it is actually better than 320kbps MP3 …

Please no:

"I hear 96kbps my whole life and can't complain" - A FIAT Panda is also good enough, but no longer when you have climbed a RR… And suddenly the RR feels vitally good and divinely good looking at the old FIAT like one Sardine in nrt tin can feels.

or

Anyone who claims to hear more than 320kbps is just stupid. Because I've tried 10 minutes next ner site on the bus FLAC and really noticed no difference.

Was not an "Audiophile" until an audiophile colleague pressed a hair man (?) Into his hand.

As with HRF monitors, 60Hz was good. After a week with 144Hz 60Hz was often "jerky".

Even with videos: 360P on laptop was ok, 480P was GOOD. After 1080p CAD tutorial, 720P was the new 360P…

320 kbps or lossless is a matter of taste. Even experts on audio equipment, which costs as much as a small new car, can't reliably distinguish both in blind test.

Even your expectation (you know what you'll hear) is more of an influence here than the format itself.

You just took and judged some flac files?
Or did you even create and evaluate flac files from original CDs?

CD-Rip archived as WAV → FLAC on the phone