Noop. Their within the other dots at exact the same levels, copying the straight smooooooth analogue signal better.
That one don't hear the better quality isn't saying that the better quality isn't there. And non-hearable quality loss can (and will) eventually turn up after editting withing the hearing quality loss.
I'll break this down because you seem to be missing some very key points about how digital sampling works.
Sampling can only work with a band limited signal. Everything above the nyquist frequency (half of the sample rate) is filtered out. It takes at least two samples to represent a waveform. If there are only two samples in that waveform, it has to be right at the nyquist frequency. (otherwise there would be more than two samples)
If something happens between those two samples, it is happening at a frequency above nyquist (more than half the sample rate) and would have been filtered out before getting to the converter. Which means that it isn't there in the first place.
So, at 44.1k sample rate, everything above 22.1khz is filtered out. Which means that no signal exists that would fall between the samples.
At 48k sample rate, everything above 24khz is filtered out.
At 96k sample rate, everything above 48khz is filtered out. Now, if you think that you have recorded significant sound half an octave above what 99% of humans can hear, it might be worth it. (as long as it doesn't get turned into an mp3, which won't have any signal above 12khz)
At the end you can't put let's say reverb over parts that are not there, so reverb over higher rates will get you cleaner reverb.
And original real life sound isn't digital either. It is smoooooth too. The (imitating!) digital result nearest to this original analogue sound will always be the best result. How simple can it be.
Again, you might want to watch that video until you understand that there are no chunks or steps to the output of a digital to analog converter.
Clear enough to me. Strange that some still try to refute that professional choise made by a group of highly trained professional designers which most probably also had consultation by many producers.
As the owner of a commercial studio for 20 years, I know exactly why they do it. It's the same reason you have to have a couple Neumanns in the mic locker, even if they aren't the best choice for most of what you do. You have to meet the expectations of your clientele, many of whom are just as ill-informed as you.
A lot of the older guys were burned by the early digital equipment and bought into the stair-step idea, when the actual explanation for the harsh sound was a combination of pre-emphasis relatively poor conversion (compared to now) and them being used to having to record everything bright to make up for analog tape's high end loss.
If one wants to doubt 'better quality when higher rates' can score points by attending Prisme on their failures with the high rates ADA-8XR and by the professional studio's who stupidly choose it. Glad some here know much more than those specialist designers with their stupid higher rates choices.
Of course! Because a sales pitch is the best place to get accurate scientific information.