Yes, this is not the right place for this discussion... love my Uber Bifrost .... but as a EE myself, I've always taken @StanD 's stance about bowing down to the almighty Nyquist theorem ... which I regard as absolutely theoretically true. That being said, you make an excellent rebuttal regarding real world components and implementations.
Of course, not being able to hear above 15khz myself, I still feel pretty secure with a sampling rate of 44.1khz.
Yeh, I didn't really want to escalate the situation and turn it into a firestorm. I understand the engineering half of it but I know a huge amount less about the human side, it would be ever so foolish to engage in a debate on something I'm not expert in.
To be fair for most purposes 44.1khz is probably fine. The only place it bothers me is classical music where the upper harmonics are of such a higher importance. It's made worse for me that I personally have a very high upper frequency hearing threshold, I can hear up to ~21Khz. Combination of being on the upper end of the bell curve and being in my twenties! As a physicist my mind is always more inclinded to taking a thoery and shaking it by the throat to see what falls out
21kHz,dang you must hang upside down and Schiit on the floor of caves. A little Bat humor.
I used to be able to make it to 20 kHz when I was young, nowadays I can still hear just over 17 kHz which is probably much more than I should at my age.
IMO to a large extent, there's a lot of imaginative claims about what they can discern about sample rates and resolutions best fitted for lab equipment. For now, I'll leave it alone. Till someone starts up again.