Oh boy! Sample rate arguments.
Lavry' argument doesn't counter Peluso's so much as meshing with it in an pragmatic way. In the paper linked above he states that he feels 96kHz is the preferred top rate for audio quality partly because it is capable of recording sources which reach up to ~40khz, yet isn't ridiculously wasteful of resources beyond that, where ever higher rates can actually begin to introduce problems of reduced accuracy. He's a quintessential engineer by mindset, and engineering is all about finding optimized solutions to problems - the sweet spot in the middle ground, enough to provide leeway but not too much extra.
Working from that principle, I've reached the conclusion that for music recording in general, sample rates from 44.1khz to 96kHz are reasonable, and 192kHz (or more) is total overkill. I choose to record at 48kHz because I couldn't hear a significant difference between 48kHz and 96kHz in test recordings I've made using my gear in optimal conditions and don't feel the doubling of storage space requirements is worth whatever subtle benefits the higher rate might provide, compounded by having found far more very-audible value in increasing channel count over increases in sample rate. As my channel counts have increased, the need to keep file-sizes manageable has also grown increasingly compelling, solidifying that decision. I'm always recording at least 4 channels, often 6, sometimes up to 8 or more.
Those are my practical reasons for recording at 48kHz. I don't have any philosophical problems whatsoever with others choosing to record at 96kHz, but I do question the pragmatism of anything higher.
There is also a common argument about what quality envelope is really required to fully contain taper recordings of PA systems. Okay, I understand that and it certainly applies in many cases here at TS. Yet some members here such as WifiJeff are recording a lot of non-amplified acoustic music in fine acoustic spaces where the argument for a higher quality envelope gains traction.