CDs (44k) still resolve to 22 kHz, while most adults top out at 15-18kHz. 196k MP3s are overkill.
I think you maybe confusing frequency range verses sampling rate.
You partially missed my point: the *harmonics* created by the interactions and interference of both the sounds we *do* hear and the sounds we do *not* hear fill the spaces within the music lost by digital reproduction. Think 5 Hz to 30 KHz. 22 KHz is good, and few if any folks can hear up there, but it *does* interact with the frequencies we *can* hear, helping shape the sound.
An excellent example of the inferiority of digital sound to analogue is what a hard metal on metal strike sounds like in real life versus what that same strike sounds like on digital. Watch (listen to) pretty much any testing stage of “Forged in Fire” for an easy example of what I am talking about.
The limitations and losses caused by digital recording/replay are well known. As I stated earlier, digital is just fine where acoustics are marginal, but analogue absolutely outshines in ideal conditions.
That is why live performances are so much better than EITHER! Why we are having this debate is puzzling to me.
On this great song - I’m absolutely certain Lady Antebellum (now caved to “politically correct” ‘Lady A’) used this song’s structure for their hit “I Need You Now”. Alan has a clear cut plagiarism case here if he chooses to pursue it.
You audio snobs need more whine with your jeez. I think Don W is right on saying vinyl preserves and conveys a specific depth and quality that digital fails to recreate.
Not unlike modern digital movie-making compared to using real bulk film and the hard-learned techniques great film makers of the last century brought us (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Lean, etc.).
I recall extremely esoteric substances used to make the needles for LPs that cost hundreds of dollars for those chasing the purest sound. It was nearly a religion for them and I enjoyed many hours listening to their hobby. Consuming wine and cheese.