A flawed test shows the expected results! Classic. But you'll never admit it, because of the pervasive confirmation bias. Honestly don't really care about the results, but as a scientist, I have to lambast you for your procedure and your bias. Really atrocious. Sorry.

Your brain, especially your senses, are inaccurate and imprecise sensors. Furthermore, our ability to analyze flaws in audio is even less dependable. Our brain is designed to fill in holes in our senses, and it does an extremely good job of it. Indeed, this is why mp3 and other perceptual audio encoding techniques work so well. However, one must always keep in mind—you can just as easily fool yourself that you can't hear any differences, as you can fool yourself that you can. You're right in the general case. One cannot hear a difference between the original CD and a bitrate of about 160kbps. But that's because your ears adapt to it. They readily fill in the gaps; and they want to! But that does not mean there is no difference, and certainly the difference can be heard in untestable ways, not necessarily when focused on the details of short segments of specific tracks, but instead at the overall sound and feeling of the music over extended periods of listening. ABX is flawed. It's using the most inaccurate sensor ever designed: the human ear. I don't trust it, and prefer to go with the highest quality available for that reason. Because I know exactly how the mp3 algorithm works, I know it's designed to fool me, I know it does it quite well, I know I can't hear any difference, and I know better than to trust it.