'Life Above 20kh' Research Paper, Harmonics (Overtones)

Dear @teo_audio : " which are also correct in the critical to human areas of signal reproduction "

there are not a true critical areas of signal reproduction. According that link and my posts here and elsewhere everything is critical from 16hz to over 150khz.
All harmonics modulates what we are " hearing " and puts the natural color MUSIC has.

"" requires an approximate 250khz plus sampling rate, and zero jitter of any kind. at a signal bit depth of at least 20 bits.

currently, we are incapable of recreating/building this. (Jitter) ""

Well today DACs comes with 32bits/384 characterisitcs, way higher than what we need.

Jitter?, LP is way worst than digital about because the cartridge stylus tip can’t follows the grooves modulations with continuity. The stylus tip is jumping at each great obstacle name it groove. This is worst that anything you imagine happens through digital.
Along that exist a tracking error in pivoted tonearms that impedes to pick up what is in the recording and where do you leave all the tonearm/cartridge/LP surface/TT developed resonances/distortions/noises added for that terrible inverse RIAA eq and all those additional gain stages in the electronics where the cartridge signal must pass thorugh ! ! !



All those is superior to today digital alternative?



""" Digital did some of the most critical (to human hearing) things wrong.. """

please tell me a computer or any digital instrument/device that does not use BITS. In which world are you living?

R.

Boring.
"This sounds better than that on MY system"
Sgt. Pepper's was created on a multidubbed 4 track. It SHOULD sound better mass produced on a limited analog media.
BFD
Blah blah honk honk.
I like a lot of music more than other.
You probably don't agree.
There is NO I'm right or you are wrong.

I think  rauliruegas1's point  is can't be overstated - that we don't just hear music, we experience it, and that means through all the senses and faculties within the human mechanism.

Science is a long long way from being able to measure all the subtle faculties in play, so focusing solely on the brain's processing of a single transport will remain incomplete.

First of all this paper proves absolutely nothing. It brings up some interesting avenues for research which is about it. One tenet od scientific research is that the results have to be reproducible. No body has reproduced anything.
Music is absolutely not just heard but experienced. Anybody with good subwoofers knows that. Then there are the visual aspects. In spite of the sound being butte awful in many live venues the thrill of seeing a live performance frequently (but not always) overcomes that problem. Sitting at home staring at loudspeakers distorts the sound stage. Close your eyes and instrument size and location becomes better defined. Playback of a good concert video (with a big screen between the speakers takes it up another notch.
As for ultrasonics ? Very few speakers do much above 20 kHz. If they do it is so focused that you would have to be directly in front of and at the level of all the tweeters to be exposed to it. Anybody experienced in reading EEGs will tell you that it is absolutely impossible to draw a conclusion like this from these tracings. There are types of brain imaging that would be more likely to tell you something. We know for instance that people blind from a young age transfer their visual cortex to sound interpretation instead. Stevie Wonder is such an example. 
Any of the examples above of people preferring one type of amplifier over another are purely anecdotal and do not mean much. Many amps considered in the group of "best made" are solid state. I have never seen anybody drive subwoofers with a tube amp. There are great tube amplifiers and I have no doubt they can be very compelling with certain types of loud speakers. 
If anything, broad band performance influences performance in the audio band in a positive way. I know in my experience amps that go down to DC make better bass even though there is nothing audible below 18 Hz. 
As for vinyl my own pet theory is that there is something about the low level background noise that biases of dither's our brains. Just a thought. 

So if CD quality is 44.1 kHz and based upon 20 - 20,000hz.
Higher sample rates are still (as far as I know?) still from 20-20,000hz,but those sample rates could be easily quadruple that with modern bandwidths and technology.

Is it plausible that recordings that are captured through a broader frequency range (than considered hearing range), requiring a higher sample rate could bring digital closer to or even as good as analogue?

I have read about how engineers arrived at the sample rates for CD for example, and the OP has posted a paper that may question the basis for the sample rates, that it was an oversight from the beginning?