Do we really need anything greater than 24/96? Opinions?

The issue is that in general people think that a format that CAN store more dynamic range is better..
Think of why it is the music (songs) that is analysed for their softest and loudest passings. And not saying oh you have the song on format X that has dynamic range of Y dB. Therefore your song/music has Y dB.. ..no it doesn’t work like that..

(So you can put a recording that has a dynamic range of 20 dB. On a format that has 100 dB of dynamic range.)

My recording will still have *only* 20 dB. It doesn’t matter on what format it lays on. If it is 16 bits or 24 bits.

Another factor is that music in its own has naturally a dynamic range of 70 to 80 dB. So if we have a format that can contain the whole dynamic range of the music we have then we are done.

But most of us thinks that more is better.
A analogy is when you parallel parking your car. The car is the whole recorded music and the space you want to park your car is the format.
If you have a big space it is easier to park but if the space is 10 m long your car (music) is still 4 m and there is 6 m of unused space. You don’t have a longer car because the space is longer.. :)

@atdavid You are completely right. I have worked with developing optical media testers for the industry for 10 years. When it was thing.
And I got scared when as a newbie to this forum reading about this misinformation about the optical media.
Just think on the simple fact that we developed and had for many years ago, servo systems that not only read but also write at 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, 32x, 52x and higher speeds!!
Why should we suddenly today have issues with servos to track at 1x for listening on music if you do not have a lot of scratches in the disc.    

No I am not a measuring guy. :) 
But I realize that my previous post sounded like one.. :(

The point with it is to point out some levels and real numbers to get a perspective of what we are talking about. When 16 bits CD bit depth is 96 dB of dynamic range.

We do not always understand what that really mean and we go into the trap and think but 20 or 24 is better and it is better to be safe than sorry. ;)
That we have already with a wide margin achieved at 16 bits.

Now I do not say that CD is be all end all, but there is other factors why a format do not sounds to our liking. But it is not whether it is 16 bits or 24 bits. That specific part is irrelevant.  :)

https://images.app.goo.gl/KSJhYUn3eiAAnhav8

OK, study this image in the link above.
It displays what we can hear in dB and in frequency. From the softest sound we can hear from 20 to 20k hz. And up to our threshold of pain!

As seen there are a area of "music" that is smaller than our ears can perceive.

Now it is that the softhes/lowest of audibility of our hearing is most likely done and measured in a anechoic chamber were it is "completely" silent.

When we do not capture music in anechoic chambers where it is completely silent it is understandable why the music area is smaller. And for example starts at 30 dB as their "silent". In their environment.
And max sound pressure is 100 dB in the chart. (What musicians ar willing to jam at their threshold of pain, so it is understandable that we have some headroom there also.) :D

So everybody can easily see that ~70 dB of dynamic range from the softest to the loudest sound pressure for music performance at the most.

24 bits digital audio has 144 dB dynamic range. 
24 bits has the double dynamic range that of music has and also more than humans can perceive (even if we are in a anechoic chamber). But we are not and listen in silent rooms that has >=30 dB of noise. ;)

So regarding if "we really need anything greater than 24" then for the bit dept is the answer: "NO".

It is a interesting image that if we want to be able to hear (not just feel) 20 Hz then we most likely will be able to succeed if we play close to 120 dB! :)
We can also see in the other end 20k Hz it is 100dB (if we are young).. Then those who are familiar with how a real implementation of a loudness control works and the science behind it that this image has something in common with that implementation. (As a reality check to see that the information in the image is OK..) :)  

    

Sorry about the bad mathematics.

"When does 24 bit matter?

Professionals use 24 bit samples in recording and production [14] for headroom, noise floor, and convenience reasons."

Could not put it better. :)

And the parallel parking analogy was only about dynamic range and not anything else regarding quality.

Great discussion we have going on! :)

poorly mastered or recorded CDs still sound like dog poo but that is not the fault of the medium which has gotten much better over the past 35 years of its development.

I don't think that the medium CD has done ANY development since it it were defined by Sony and Philips.
A fun fact is that they defined the CD and its specifications. Then the CD manufacturer needed to manufacture a CD that meet the specifications. 
But the same went for the CD drive manufacturers they need to be able to read a CD that meet the specifications..

And someone needs to measure the CD that it meets the requirements/specifications. Otherwise the media and drive manufacturers would be in the dark..

But in the end a CD from early 80-ties will play fine in all CD readers if it meets the specifications. Same same no development but today we have better clocks and electronics. So that CD will sound better today than it did then..