I really question the 'common knowledge' and 'studies show' statements that say that people can't tell the difference between a 20KHz signal playing with 44KHz samples, and played at 96KHz samples.
I remember when the same statements were being made about video, how anything over 24Hz refresh rate was a waste of time because we had decades of studies that showed that people couldn't tell the difference.
Well, they found out that they were wrong there, at 24Hz people stopped seeing things as separate pictures and saw things as motion instead, but there are still benefits to higher refresh rates.
I think the same thing is in play on the audio side.
not everyone will be able to tell the difference, and it may even be that the mythical 'average man' cannot, but that doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile for some people. It also doesn't mean that people who don't report a difference in a test won't see a difference over a longer timeframe of useage (for example, going from 30Hz refresh rates to 80Hz refresh rates appears to decrease eye strain and headaches for people over long time periods, even for people who can't tell the difference between the two when they sit down in front of the two side by side.