Good video, Alan. Looks like I've been sucked down the rabbit hole again.
IMHO he didn't explain his preference for 48kHz over 44.1kHz very-well. He referred to the old-style analogue filters and common internet-delivery rates, but they're false arguments IMHO:
1) The digital brick-wall filters used these days don't require the roughly-4k "width" 44.1kHz afforded the old analogue counterparts. Adding a further 4kHz cannot be justified in this way, therefore. Remember - 4kHz was already added to the theoretically-necessary 40kHz specified by Harry Nyquist in order to accommodate those filters' steepness limitations.
2) Majority / popular opinion is not a valid argument.
It'd be great if Christoph ckemper could take a few seconds to confirm my contention that 44.1kHz is in fact adequate due to the progress made in implementing this filter over the years. It's so-ridiculously steep now that it wouldn't surprise me if we could theoretically go back down to near the Nyquist frequency for sampling rates, IOW, less than 44.1kHz.