Is everyone aware that the analog FM broadcast standard is 50 Hz -15 KHz, with a 60 Db signal-to-noise ratio? The frequency response can't be exceeded due to the design of the system, and the S/N ratio is best case, dependent upon how clean a signal can be received (minimal multipath interference, for example). People spent huge sums on FM tuners capable of substantially better performance, but in the end, "garbage in, garbage out."
The same is true for Bluetooth. It's a "broadcast" standard, with fixed capabilities, because it must interoperate with equipment from multiple manufacturers. There's no way to push "higher quality" through that pipeline - the hardware isn't equipped to encode/decode it.
For the most part, the professional studio's higher sampling rates, word sizes, etc. are used, not to ensure a super-high-quality end user experience, but to minimize the accumulation of degradation during the production process. For example, greater headroom = greater margin for error.
I spent over 25 years in broadcasting and music recording/production, starting in the early 1970s. Nothing has changed in all these years. The consumer audio industry continues to sell ever-higher-fi, and a portion of the consumer market continues to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. The human body's capabilities have not increased over the years, yet there are those who believe that somehow, they can now discern what the average human was physiologically incapable of discerning 40 years ago.
Any record label that sells audiophile quality is simply selling. Sure, just like the makers of gourmet foods, they'll spend extra on better ingredients, boast about their special equipment/processes, etc. But at the end of the day, it's about the customer believing that they've paid for and received "the best." For every audiophile who can actually hear the difference, there are probably 10 other audiophiles who really can't. They lack the ear training to actually recognize the defects/benefits, and/or the physiological ability to discern them. The rest is psychology.
Like everything else in the world of high end/luxury goods, the target consumer has lots of money and an ego that is stroked by knowing they can afford (and own) "the best." Of course, the goods are often measurably or demonstrably "better," and a subset of that customer base actually does achieve extra pleasure from that extra quality. It's not all smoke and mirrors.
However, when it comes to the performing arts, it's really all about the composition and performance Given a choice between an ultra-high-quality recording of a mediocre song/artist and a mediocre recording of a great song/artist... which would you choose? (And yes, sometimes you can get a great recording of a great song/artist, but do you deny yourself a great song/artist solely due to technical quality?)
If you love listening to performances recorded 40 years ago (or more), it doesn't matter whether it's distributed in CD Quality (44 Khz/16 bit) or something higher than that. The original was almost undoubtedly recorded in grossly-flawed, distorted analog, there's only so much that can be done to change that. If the original was recorded to today's highest digital standards, then naturally you would't want a distribution method that degrades that quality. However, I certainly wouldn't pay a premium to have a grungy old analog original distributed using today's highest standards - there's nothing to be gained from it.
