-
It all helps to muddy the waters! I'm not sure your argument holds much water though.
Analog tape would be the medium until the early eighties, that has a resolution arguably higher than CD. Most digital studios are recording at 96/24 which is the baseline for a definition of hi-res. There are audible advantages over 44/16 (cd quality) as harmonics from the filters used in DACs can affect the audible band at 44/16 but are far less present at 96/24. There are also arguments for using the native clock speed of a DAC. 24 bit also increases the s/n ratio.
192+, DSD, MQA wrappers etc. all make things more complex and may not be an improvement on 96/24 but it's not true to say that most of the 'stuff' is recorded and mixed at a lower resolution.
Airhead-
Studios now are at 96/24, I suspect plenty weren’t at the crossover point from tape. Tape itself has a theoretical fidelity and the real world use of imperfectly set machines and deliberate overloading for effect etc.
I get that CDs were a compromise but there are so many bigger things to worry about before 96/24 and I think above that is into the world of woo - certainly for listening (internal DAW mixing at 32bit fp makes a lot of sense).
Dramatic_Hammer
I honestly don’t see the point of hi-res streaming - most of the stuff will have been recorded and mixed at a much lower resolution. It’s not like video where the ‘bandwidth’ of film/pro digital is noticeably higher than consumers can display.