Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

I've been considering purchasing a Schiit Bifrot 16 bit DAC for a more modest system. Schiit Audio also offers a multibit Bifrost but I don't know that the added cost would really be justified.
I have a friend who said that in many ways he prefers a lower bit rate, he claims that it's easier for him to listen to. I just believe that so many variables are complex and subjective. Which is why I believe that everyone has a vote and that no one has a veto. After all, isn't that why we're sharing.

Upsampling does not increase resolution it only makes possible to make the filtering easier. The point of 192KHz sampling is not to hear it, but NOT to hear it.
I second the notion that CD re-issues of old vinyl masters is disappointing. But more convenient.
Recording at highest possible resolution makes perfect sense. The Red Book spec was written a very long time ago. Error correction is limited, no real checksums and such a data file can have. The realtime nature of the data stream is also unnecessary. Buffering the data makes it possible to do error checking and corrections.
The purpose of higher resolution formats is not automatically better sound, but the possibility of a more accurate recording. 
More resolution could potentially unmask flaws in the process.
There are plenty of opportunities to screw up a recording regardless of resolution. Very good recordings seem hard to find.
Hundreds of feet of microphone cables are used in recording studios. Is their impact less than the type and placement of the mikes?

I have some great 16/44 recordings on vinyl so i dont think high sampling rates are needed. I cant get those same recordings to sound good on CD unfortunately.