Oh no you don't
To give it credit, MP3 was useful in making digital music more portable and less reliant on playback devices with fragile moving parts. But it was always a compromise to fool your ear, rather like FM radio: you're not getting the whole sound and, despite the initial claims that sensible compression settings only discard inaudible frequencies, you do notice the difference.
Yes, you definitely do notice the difference. Except if you have to do it in blind testing. Hydrogen audio performed quite a long time ago testing on different MP3/AAC bitrates, on properly functioning codec (=no blatant bugs, incorrect settings) very few people can tell 128kbit apart from FLAC. Throw in variable bitrate and/or higher constant bitrate and you're completely SOL. (*)
But as if by magic once you know it's MP3 you start to notice the differences right away..
This is just age old "debate", cf audiophiles claiming in all seriousness vinyl is better in absolute sound quality than CD. Uncompressed audio does not bring really anything to the table except higher bitrates and file sizes. Those DTS-HD tracks take surprising amounts of space in a movie if you still watch them on disk. There's a reason why netflix does not have uncompressed audio..
(*) yes, some people have unusual hearing but you're not one of them. How many even hear pitch perfect?