Not even a 96KHz (that's over twice the sample rate of your itunes and youtube music) WAV file and the best speakers known to man could perfectly recreate a sound. Unless you had an infinite sample rate for your sounds, you can not perfectly recreate them.
*pinches temples* I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this to half the internet, but it'll likely never end, so here we go. Higher sample rates than 44.1khz...are bad. I'll get to that in a minute, but there needs to be some setup first. Humans physically cannot hear over 22khz, and according to Nyquist Frequency, the maximum frequency a file with a given sample rate can hold is half of that sample rate. 44.1khz, aka CD audio, holds more information than 99% of humans can hear, because most humans can't hear anywhere near 21khz. Now, increasing that sample rate in the actual recording, (not just upsampling)
that can cause audible issues, because it gives the file something called spectral padding, it allows frequencies higher than anyones potential perception to exist in the file, and be reproduced. Might not seem harmful at first, but music playback contains millions of waves, all being produced by (most of the time) a single diaphragm, at once. This leads to some of those waves interfering with each other, which is called intermodulation distortion. Issue is, that spectral padding can intermodulate with audible frequencies, creating IMD you can hear. You get no benefit from spectral padding, only downsides. Save time and space, and only use 44.1khz. I'd advocate using 16 bits too but bit depth is more complicated and has to do with how audible changing it can be. (bit depth affects how low level noise hash is handled by the encoder, imo it's completely inaudible to humans)
