I repeat: Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range.
That's why I don't discuss this anymore. I try to tell that we can't fight nature. If you really want to discuss the sample rate debate, please talk to any Auditory Doctor worth his grain of salt before buying into all misinformation and myths on the internet.
I happened to discuss this with some Auditory Doctors when my mother attended a research group for Tinnitus at the biggest hospital in my home town, country even.
She have had Tinnitus for many years and participated voluntarily in this research after consulting me. She knew I had more than average interest in the subject, after I finished my Sound Engineer education in the mid 90's (started recording about 1979-80).
PS. For anyone who believe we can "feel" the frequencies above our hearings range, please follow the Fletcher-Munson (phon) curves and figure out how much energy you have to provide, to bring it up at an even level with some lower frequencies (we still can't hear it, but may feel it).
The only way these high frequencies can be used in medical equipment is due the very hard handed high-pass filtering, using all the energy in specific frequency areas.
If we provided the same amount of power into the lower frequencies (we have no amps that can feed that amount of power across a full frequency spectrum within a musical context).
If we could have provided that power played back, we had burned up and/or exploded.
Think of why we can get hot in a ultrasound treatment. Then think of what we had "felt" when that power had hit us in a full frequency musical context (talk about Wall of Sound
Don't make this harder than it is. Don't fight nature. It is only good old physics and math, and human auditory system limitations.
I finish: However clever you are, or good you are at cut'n'paste, and how many "mumbo jumbo" words you use: Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range. Agree?