But in music? I have tried it with multiple tracks, including some crazy high BPM screamo and electronic alternate music that is supposed to have huge range and make reduced bit rates apparent, but I still have my entire collection in 128kbps Opus, and even that feels like overkill to me - the only bitrate threshold I hear a difference in is between 64 and 92 kbps. I really don't notice 92 vs 128, but I keep it up just in case because space is cheap.
I have a "source" collection of tracks in flac / 320kbps mp3, and its 85GB big. My Opus collection at 128kbps, that I put on all my devices, is 20 gig. And I honestly never can tell the difference.
But there are audiophiles who will swear they notice it. The same way I'll swear to you I know the difference between 60 and 120hz, the same way I notice 200 PPI vs 300 PPI at 12" view distance (for all our Euros, that is 30cm). So I won't debunk them because I don't have their ears, and as long as they have done enough evaluations to be confident about it in some partially scientific way (ie, they don't just say "BIGGER NUMBER BETTER MUST GET", then I'll take their word. It doesn't hurt you if others are pushing the upper bounds of human perception for you in this tech, because the benefits trickle down to even the mid range gear.
I do really like good speakers, though. Headphones drive me nuts because of no mass. I like a nice subwofer, nothing Earth shaking, but even at 10% volume I can feel the vibrations and they make a huge difference. But then I don't notice anything - so my $250 surround sound set I gave to my Dad, because I really like my $50 2.1 speaker set.