I'm sorry kangaroo, but you are wrong. Nyquist states that 44.1 is capable of perfectly recreating the waveform throughout the audible range... not pretty close, not close enough for government work, not close as dammit... PERFECTLY. Inaudible frequencies are inaudible. Tests have shown that super audible frequencies add nothing to the perceived sound quality of music. That shouldn't be surprising because aside from gamelan gongs, musical instruments don't produce much in the way of super audible frequencies.
I supervise sound mixes on occasion as part of my job. We generally record and mix at 24/96 to allow headroom for processing. When the mix is finalized and approved, the last step is to bounce the track down to 16/44.1 (or 16/48 depending on how the file will be used) and rack up the bounce down against the original mix playing out of the board. The two playbacks are carefully compared by the engineers, artists, and producers to make sure they are absolutely identical. You never want to deliver a file that you haven't checked. In the couple of decades that I've done this, I have never found a single mix that sounded different in 24/96 than it did in 16/44.1. If there were differences, the caution flags would be thrown up and we would go back and find the mistake.
You're getting your information from faulty sources. Again, I suggest that you listen more and argue less. You have the potential to learn useful things, but you don't learn without being open to learning from people who might know things you don't. I know that if you have facts to present to support your opinions, I'm all ears. But you haven't provided much in the way of facts.