Frustratingly we are living the age of "alternative facts", but the real facts nevertheless exist.
In music production higher resolution offers benefits. Bigger dynamic range means you don't have to optimize the use of 16 bit dynamic range at every point and there is no fear of massive processing of sound to cumulate into audible levels of noise. Bigger bandwidth is perhaps less beneficial, but in some instances may offer something. Such as recording ultrasonic frequencies and playing them back at lower sample rate to make those frequencies audible to humans.
Consumers of music don't need higher resolution formats. When the music has been produced using higher resolution and the benefits have been gained, the end result is easy to optimize for CD. Music consumers do not need more than about 80 dB (~13 bits) worth of dynamic range (vinyl has 60 dB at best). There's simply limits of human hearing dictating these requirements. There are limits of listening environments. Say you have a very quiet room with 30 dB background noise level. 80 dB up from that is 110 dB. How much above that do you want to go? How much pain do you want your ears to feel? How much do you want to damage your hearing? How quiet sounds do you think you are able to hear temporarily when your ear have a been exposed to sound pressure levels of over 100 dB? Loud sounds rise the threshold of hearing. The dynamic range of hearing 120-130 dB, but not in one time! When your ears have rested for hours in silence you can hear sounds as quiet as 0 dB SPL (even below that around 3-4 kHz), but that's not the case when you blast music loud and your threshold of hearing has temporarily raised. That's why during the music listening session the dynamic range of your hearing is much less than 120-130 dB, about 70 dB. That's why you do not need more than 80 dB of dynamic range. It also explains why for many even vinyls have enough dynamic range.
Technically the more bits you have the more information you have, but the question is what information is relevant for human ears? Stuff we don't hear anyway can go. I don't hear ants farting so I don't care if CD can't produce sounds that quiet. I don't hear bats chirping so I don't care if CD can't produce those ultrasonic frequencies. Within the bandwidth and dynamic range specifications, digital audio doesn't loose information. DACs don't reconstruct "lost" information. They reconstruct the analog signal from the digital information. Oversampling is a "technically smart" way to do it. Within the bandwidth and dynamic range limitations digital audio can theoretically reproduce the original signal with 100 % accuracy. Higher resolution doesn't increase accuracy (you can't go above 100 %), but they push the limits further beyond the limits of human hearing. High resolution digital sound is not better for human ears. We can't hear the effect of more bits, because 44.1/16 already gets over our limits.
Philips wasn't crazy wanting 14 bits for the CD first. As I mentioned, about 13 bits is what's needed. CD specifications were not economical decisions as at first CD players were very price, althou the prices dropped fast. The decisions were for the most part technological. Fortunately at that point in time, four decades ago, digital technology was at a level were a "good enough" format could be created. CD has enough bandwidth and dynamic range. The real limitation of CD is the amount of audio channels. That's what CD really lacks, support for multichannel sound, but for stereo (and mono) sound it's not lacking anything sound-quality wise.
Hi-res consumer audio however is an economical decision. It's about milking audiophools out of their money. Making people buy their favourite albums again and again. Better masterings is all they can offer, but then again those better masterings sound just as good at CD quality so there is that...
