The guy in Ratter's video puts markers on his screen, the lower of which was 44kHz. It's all completely academic because, if you put "human ear frequency response" into your favourite search engine, the result comes back "20Hz-20kHz" (and you start losing the top end, gradually, from your early 20s).
Either my ears are kaput or my phone's speakers are rubbish but, when I play this video, it fades at about 9400Hz. There are some artefacts - 'beat frequencies', if you will - on the way to 20k but, other than that, silence.
When I use a frequency generating app on my phone, my upper limit is usually 11khz or so but I still don't know if it's my ears or the speaker's limits. I will ask my optician for a hearing test on my next visit.
My argument, on favour of vinyl, is that the waveform output is curved, whereas CD/MP3 are digitised and thus a jagged/stepped waveform. Your eardrum might succeed in smoothing this out but the fact that it has to must have some structural impacts. When CD's were new on the market, some purists would insist that vinyl sounded "smoother" but that was their subjective assessment, not based on what oscilloscopes showed.
Additionally, some audiophiles would consider a piece of vinyl as 'spent', or at least having the edge taken off its top end response after as few as 10 plays. You'd get it home, listen to it once through, to check for flaws, commit it to tape on the second run, then put it on the shelf. Eight more top-quality plays for when the tape wore out or adding a track to a compilation, say.
Then again, if wine snobs can fail at blind tastings, I'll bet that audio snobs couldn't pick apart CD and vinyl other than by reference to cues such as dust/static on the vinyl version (in the quiet passages).