Are high sample rates making your music sound worse?

“Since no one >10 can hear over 20kHz, there is no point to listening to something like 192kHz in the first place, if your amp can even properly playback such high frequencies, all you are doing is increasing the chances of driving your tweeter into distortion“

Total BS......

Basically speaking, the higher your bit-depth/sampling rate, the "better" quality recording you’ll get. You just to need make sure your equipment is up to the task.

The 24bit/196khz files on Qobuz sounds much more dynamic over 16bit/44.1kHz files on Tidal.

My long term dealer and I sat in DCS demonstration room and agreed that upsampling to 192, generally but not always, resulted in a better listening experience, and indeed preferable to upsampling to dsd. I have then at home set my DCS upsampler to 192 after I confirmed the findings in my home environment.

I don’t doubt your experience at all. But, the quality and implementation of the DAC analogue stage must be taken into consideration. The article mentions that the rest of the system must be up to the task of clean reproduction. But after upsampling the data, the analogue output stage must be up to the task.
So this exercise should be measured in a case by case basis.YMMV.

You are invited to look up about the Nyquist Theorem which is the basis of all analog to digital encoding. But to cut to the chase regarding sampling rates more is better. To wit the last and some would argue ultimate method of audio digitization is Direct Stream Digital DSD format which samples at 64X CD or 2.8 megahertz and uses one bit quantization.  The huge dump of data bits on optical disc is called SACD. 

I've been considering purchasing a Schiit Bifrot 16 bit DAC for a more modest system. Schiit Audio also offers a multibit Bifrost but I don't know that the added cost would really be justified.
I have a friend who said that in many ways he prefers a lower bit rate, he claims that it's easier for him to listen to. I just believe that so many variables are complex and subjective. Which is why I believe that everyone has a vote and that no one has a veto. After all, isn't that why we're sharing.

Upsampling does not increase resolution it only makes possible to make the filtering easier. The point of 192KHz sampling is not to hear it, but NOT to hear it.
I second the notion that CD re-issues of old vinyl masters is disappointing. But more convenient.
Recording at highest possible resolution makes perfect sense. The Red Book spec was written a very long time ago. Error correction is limited, no real checksums and such a data file can have. The realtime nature of the data stream is also unnecessary. Buffering the data makes it possible to do error checking and corrections.
The purpose of higher resolution formats is not automatically better sound, but the possibility of a more accurate recording. 
More resolution could potentially unmask flaws in the process.
There are plenty of opportunities to screw up a recording regardless of resolution. Very good recordings seem hard to find.
Hundreds of feet of microphone cables are used in recording studios. Is their impact less than the type and placement of the mikes?