True, we're discussing two different things. This thread started by asking whether 16/44.1 was adequate for recording music. I guess it's expected it would devolve to the usual level, but I was still trying to look at it from a more scientific perspective. It's not too different (in that respect) from a previous thread which Amir presented, which made a very good (I thought) logical and scientific argument for why we need at least 120 db of dynamic range to accomodate even unamplified music, even though trying to then reproduce that in a home setting might be currently unrealistic and/or harmful to one's hearing. Likewise, there is just too much good evidence that there are a significant number of people for whom reproducing a frequency range of only 20-20 kHz will not replicate live music. Whether or not any of them are members of WBF is really beside the point, or should be. Furthermore, despite some assertions to the contrary, it's clear that digital filtering in both ADC and DAC has measurable anomalies which easily might (or might not, since the more aggressively vocal digital apologists refuse to admit there is a problem and therefore won't carefully investigate it) affect accurate music reproduction.
Try to remember that my (considerable) music collection (at least the part that I listen to) is all digital and probably 90+% CD, so I'm anything but a digital hater.