That’s, with respect, nonsense.
There haven’t been any “proofs” of any such thing.
Only opinion.
A B testing is only useful with people TRAINED as to what the artifacts are and how to listen for them.
And also in truth it’s music we are talking about, not data.
It doesn’t matter if an average person cannot identify a difference in a piece of music he doesn’t particularly know.
But show a trained recording engineer or producer a comparison using a track he is intimately familiar with, and emotionally INVESTED in, and then he can spot the difference every time.
I’ll stake my own reputation to no small degree... but when people as informed AND talented as George Massemburg talk about the value of recording at 192k it’s foolishness if you choose to ignore it because some armchair writers on the internets claim to “debunk” it.
When I’ve heard their hit records I’ll take them as seriously.
To your other comment:
The makers of digital audio hardware and software DO make high sample rates available.
One could as easily argue that if they were “unnecessary” then they’re wasting resources by offering it.
People love to quote Lavry for his conclusion that sample rates above 60k might be unnecessary, but those same people almost never quote the other part of his conclusIon which was that lacking 60k conveyors, and given the current availability, he’d recommend 96k.