No. I and 60% of those asked (AES study) hear differences. Trained ears are more likely than that to hear differences. We just do. Asserting we can’t won’t work. If you want more people listening to more music with more pleasure (like back in the days before 44/16) then the whole industry needs to understand this. Fortunately a lot of the industry is indeed doing this - Amazon, Tidal, Qobuz - are working hard on this now. When Apple and Spotify decide they want to move on from crappy ear buds (Apple) and multi-room convenience (Spotify) then it is game over for CD and 44/16. Thirty years lost, but never mind...
I can see a few reasons why a 96/24 track and a 44/16 may sound different.
The obvious one is issued from different masters. Some of the super sounding early CD releases have been "resampled" and re-issued, but they sound very obviously different IME, with the re-sampled ones usually being complete cr*p, so ones where the difference is small would be audible.
Secondly may be if the DAC being used handles the files differently, either a different reconstruction filter or some internal resampling algorithm. That would be entirely DAC dependant.
I would not be confident any supplier advertising high res content at premium prices would be supplying CD res content from the same master - their business model relies on customers preferring their more expensive service.
To avoid either of these possibilities clouding the issue when I made a comparison I took a super quality (IMHO) 96/24 music file of music I like, Whitacre: The River Cam from his Water Night album, downsampled it to 44/16 then re-sampled it back to 96/24.
This eliminates both possibilities, firstly, it is definitely the same master
and secondly, being the same file type my DAC would handle it the same way regardless of its internal workings. Of course, any data that was on the 96/24 file above 22kHz and below 16-bit depth will have been lost from the second file.
It also gives the high ground to the 96/24 file since it hasn't been manipulated at all.
Anyway, having done this I made some comparisons and the files are indistinguishable (by me). I even burnt a CD from the album, happy in the fact that it wouldn't be inferior to the 96/24 file on the computer.
I have now been listening to music for over 50 years, buying and LP a week as soon as I was earning, and also working in the record player industry, then buying CDs and being an early adopter of file based music as MP3, then MP4, then lossless at various sample rates.
I am now back on mainly CDs, and as long as it isn't a rubbish release (and sadly most are nowadays the older ones were mainly better) and I am content to be sure that there is zero audible musical information which can not be completely captured in a 44/16 file.
What DOES make a vast difference is recording quality.
I have fabulous sounding LPs and CDs but equally some awful ones.
If a recording is fatiguing it is far more likley to be the recording quality at fault than the medium on which it is distributed.
I still have a Qobuz account but, frankly, life is too short for any more comparisons in the folorn hope I may hear a minute difference between file types when there are such huge and obvious differences between recordings anyway.
One has to ask the question, if it takes a huge amount of effort to hear whether there may just be a minute difference then why not forgedabout it and get on with enjoying music?
Unless one is more interested in the technology than listening to music, that is (and I know a few people who are) .