Interesting comments re sampling frequencies. An example of where they fall over is how the major difference between the industry standard bearer Yamaha PM5 digital audio console (100's of thousands of $$) and the Yamaha M7CL console (10's of thousands) is that the PM5 samples at 96kHz whereas the M7 samples at 48kHz. This results in a less "brittle" top end, and more interestingly, smoother bottom end.
Recording at 96kHz offers a vastly superior result also. I've extensively used the Mackie 24/96 hard disc multitrack recorders to record all sorts (eg New Zealand Symphony Orchestra), they have Apogee ADA converters (among the best) and offer switchable 48/96kHz sampling to conserve space and the difference between the two sampling rates is obvious even to the untrained ear.

Also we may not "hear" above 20,000 cycles, but we can feel it in our teeth and bones, and that impacts on our perception of what we hear.

Too late.
I seem to be in a willy waving battle too, waving my willy around.. (c:

Just to clear it up, I don't get this information from the internet, I am a sound engineer of 20 years (recording studio and sound design for theatre as well as large scale outdoor rock concerts) with a degree in acoustics.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to. Convenience. I haven't even played my cd's since ripping em to 320kbs mp3's.
I like having em though, just like I like having the game box and manual.

Vinyl does in fact have a greater frequency response than cd which is capped at 24kHz due to it's sampling rate. A good vinyl pressing lathe will go up to 80,000 cycles. Certainly we can't hear that high, but those high frequencies harmonically affect the ones we can.
On your average stereo with an average turntable cds will sound better but on a higher quality system (we're only talking thousands of $$ here) vinyl will beat cd every time. This isn't subjective either - you would pick it in a blind test.
CD's just sound better on shitty systems is all, and handle scratches better.