There seems to be some conflation of production quality and sound quality here. Sound quality is what, in the vinyl age, was called fidelity i. e. a recorded or rendered sound should closely resemble the original with as little artifact content as possible. That is primarily a function of the technology used in the process, and of course it is not the only factor to be considered in the listenability of the sound. It is hard to make the case that great music sounds better at low fidelity, so all things being equal a reasonable sound quality is advisable. On the other hand, if the distinction in quality is something that can only be measured using specialized instruments, or can be appreciated only by bats, such ultra-high fidelity is largely superfluous. Much of the hype around sound quality, extreme sampling rates, fantastical signal to noise ratios etc. is just hype.
Production quality generally refers to the recording techniques used to capture the sound, and in contemporary use typically to what was once called post-production as well, if not primarily. This latter meaning involves an artistic and esthetic application of mixing and mastering processes, that can radically alter the sound. Arguably some of the most popular work in circulation would be much worse if not for the work in post-production.
Some truly great music was captured on wax cylinders, but the sound quality was pretty abysmal, and most of us would find it pretty tiring for long periods of casual listening. You can listen through the poor sound quality and appreciate the music with some effort, but the aural experience is a bit like running with a sprained ankle.