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

THEY are sending their cybertrolls from the future to undermine our democracy and the way we listen to music. They know nothing about our technology because theirs is so superior, they don’t bother. And you can recognize them by their jokes.

We are probing the future generations. Unfortunately, but a lot of them have no real future. Too much time spent with noses in books. Not enough time in reality. I’m getting all choked up. 😢 Geez, even a cosmic wedgie won’t work.

But if we are your grand grand somethings how come you are so much smarter?
I know, you are  AI from the future! That's why all you jokes suck.

Apparently they still don’t teach good grammar back in the past. Nice try though. You can’t teach comedy. Comedy is subjective. I was born with perfect comedic timing.

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..) :)  

    

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.  :)

"We are probing the future generations. Unfortunately, but a lot of them have no real future. "
Right, so you are AI from the future and  you were after probing your future generations, so you are simply lost in time! This is 2019, and we are your past generations! So nothing is lost, just reset your PlanckTime clock and go back to the future. Or to the future past your future. Then you can fix the generations for their future future past your future.

@optimize, "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.. :)"


A great analogy, and one's that easy to understand. 

The OP is correct when he says,

"Plus, I really think the recording (studio-mastering) means more to sound quality than the actual output format/resolution. I've heard excellent recorded/mastered recordings sound killer on iTunes streaming and CD." 

If you are looking for genuine sonic improvement over Redbook then remastering is where that dog is (sometimes) buried.

Masterings can and do vary considerably in end result, and this does nothing to clarify matters. For example if you were to buy Bob Dylan's Street Legal album you would be faced with a number of buying decisions before you could be sure you had the best sonic copy as this quote from Wiki makes clear. 

"The original 1978 LP credits mastering to Stan Kalina at CBS Recording Studios NY; the album was produced by Don DeVito. In 1999, Street-Legal received a special remixing and remastering job from DeVito. The newer version boasted richer sound, correcting numerous issues with the original production. The new mix was also used in a 2003 SACD reissue of Street-Legal. However the original 1978 mix was reinstated for The Complete Album Collection Vol. 1."

It all depends upon who did it, what with, and why?

For what it's worth I'd take the 1999/2003 issue over any of the others.

In my private ranking of the sound quality factors recording/mastering is third, after ear/brain and loudspeaker/room systems. And before electronics.

The parking the car analogy is actually not correct. The problem is not the original recording and it’s not the digital format. It’s the remastering or in some cases the original mastering that’s the problem. It’s the overly aggressive dynamic range compression that is the problem. They took what was originally a Cadillac and squashed it down to a VW.
Also I’m not sure I go along with somebody’s math which appears to say 144 dB is double the dynamic range of 70 dB. 

Considering the car analogy was specific about what information is in typical music, and what the potential is of CD, and Not, how it is manipulated, then the car analogy is appropriate.  Your Cadillac / VW analogy is also valid, it just represents a different problem on the way from the recording to our ears.

I am with you on the math, 144db is perceptibly about 169 times more dynamic range than 70db.

We've discussed the frequency range of the ear, but what about the dynamic range from the softest possible sound to the loudest possible sound?

One way to define absolute dynamic range would be to look again at the absolute threshold of hearing and threshold of pain curves. The distance between the highest point on the threshold of pain curve and the lowest point on the absolute threshold of hearing curve is about 140 decibels for a young, healthy listener. That wouldn't last long though; +130dB is loud enough to damage hearing permanently in seconds to minutes. For reference purposes, a jackhammer at one meter is only about 100-110dB.

The absolute threshold of hearing increases with age and hearing loss. Interestingly, the threshold of pain decreases with age rather than increasing. The hair cells of the cochlea themselves posses only a fraction of the ear's 140dB range; musculature in the ear continuously adjust the amount of sound reaching the cochlea by shifting the ossicles, much as the iris regulates the amount of light entering the eye [9]. This mechanism stiffens with age, limiting the ear's dynamic range and reducing the effectiveness of its protection mechanisms [10].

Environmental noise

Few people realize how quiet the absolute threshold of hearing really is.

The very quietest perceptible sound is about -8dbSPL [11]. Using an A-weighted scale, the hum from a 100 watt incandescent light bulb one meter away is about 10dBSPL, so about 18dB louder. The bulb will be much louder on a dimmer.

20dBSPL (or 28dB louder than the quietest audible sound) is often quoted for an empty broadcasting/recording studio or sound isolation room. This is the baseline for an exceptionally quiet environment, and one reason you've probably never noticed hearing a light bulb.

The dynamic range of 16 bits

16 bit linear PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB according to the most common definition, which calculates dynamic range as (6*bits)dB. Many believe that 16 bit audio cannot represent arbitrary sounds quieter than -96dB. This is incorrect.

I have linked to two 16 bit audio files here; one contains a 1kHz tone at 0 dB (where 0dB is the loudest possible tone) and the other a 1kHz tone at -105dB.

• Sample 1: 1kHz tone at 0 dB (16 bit / 48kHz WAV)

• Sample 2: 1kHz tone at -105 dB (16 bit / 48kHz WAV)

Above: Spectral analysis of a -105dB tone encoded as 16 bit / 48kHz PCM. 16 bit PCM is clearly deeper than 96dB, else a -105dB tone could not be represented, nor would it be audible.

How is it possible to encode this signal, encode it with no distortion, and encode it well above the noise floor, when its peak amplitude is one third of a bit?

Part of this puzzle is solved by proper dither, which renders quantization noise independent of the input signal. By implication, this means that dithered quantization introduces no distortion, just uncorrelated noise. That in turn implies that we can encode signals of arbitrary depth, even those with peak amplitudes much smaller than one bit [12]. However, dither doesn't change the fact that once a signal sinks below the noise floor, it should effectively disappear. How is the -105dB tone still clearly audible above a -96dB noise floor?

The answer: Our -96dB noise floor figure is effectively wrong; we're using an inappropriate definition of dynamic range. (6*bits)dB gives us the RMS noise of the entire broadband signal, but each hair cell in the ear is sensitive to only a narrow fraction of the total bandwidth. As each hair cell hears only a fraction of the total noise floor energy, the noise floor at that hair cell will be much lower than the broadband figure of -96dB.

Thus, 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB. With use of shaped dither, which moves quantization noise energy into frequencies where it's harder to hear, the effective dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice [13], more than fifteen times deeper than the 96dB claim.

120dB is greater than the difference between a mosquito somewhere in the same room and a jackhammer a foot away.... or the difference between a deserted 'soundproof' room and a sound loud enough to cause hearing damage in seconds.

16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever.

Signal-to-noise ratio

It's worth mentioning briefly that the ear's S/N ratio is smaller than its absolute dynamic range. Within a given critical band, typical S/N is estimated to only be about 30dB. Relative S/N does not reach the full dynamic range even when considering widely spaced bands. This assures that linear 16 bit PCM offers higher resolution than is actually required.

It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear.

When does 24 bit matter?

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

16 bits is enough to span the real hearing range with room to spare. It does not span the entire possible signal range of audio equipment. The primary reason to use 24 bits when recording is to prevent mistakes; rather than being careful to center 16 bit recording-- risking clipping if you guess too high and adding noise if you guess too low-- 24 bits allows an operator to set an approximate level and not worry too much about it. Missing the optimal gain setting by a few bits has no consequences, and effects that dynamically compress the recorded range have a deep floor to work with.

An engineer also requires more than 16 bits during mixing and mastering. Modern work flows may involve literally thousands of effects and operations. The quantization noise and noise floor of a 16 bit sample may be undetectable during playback, but multiplying that noise by a few thousand times eventually becomes noticeable. 24 bits keeps the accumulated noise at a very low level. Once the music is ready to distribute, there's no reason to keep more than 16 bits.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

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! :)

This one dedicated to the Guy From the Future (GFF) who doesn't understand our technology and believes that vinyl has an  intrinsically better dynamic range.

"A related myth is that when vinyl has a higher dynamic range than CD, it means the audio was sourced from a different, more dynamic master, and that the difference in dynamics will be audible.

It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels. The higher "DR value" could indeed be a result of entirely different master recordings being provided to the mastering engineers for each format, or different choices made by the engineers, as happens every time old music is remastered for a new release.

But even when the same source master is used, the audio is normally further processed when mastering for the target format (be it CD or vinyl), and this often results in vinyl having a spikier waveform and higher DR measurement. There are two types of processing during vinyl mastering that can increase the DR measurements and waveform spikiness, thus reducing the RMS and increasing the basic DR measurement by perhaps several dB:

• The audio is subjected to low-pass or all-pass filtering, which can result in broad peaks becoming slanted ramps.
• The amount and stereo separation of deep bass content is reduced for vinyl, to keep the stylus from being thrown out of the groove.

It is quite possible that these changes are entirely inaudible, despite their effect on the waveform shape and DR measurement.

The dynamic range of the waveform is also affected by the vinyl playback system; different systems provide different frequency responses. Factors include cartridge, tonearm, preamp, and even the connecting cables. A vinyl rip with weak bass may well have a higher reported DR value than a rip of the same vinyl on equipment with a stronger bass response."

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Hydrogen Audio? Don’t make me laugh! Ooops, too late! 😁 😁 😁

For those in my past who haven’t done so, I urge you to visit the unofficial dynamic range database and get eddicated.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Ten+years+after&album=

You would have to understand what DR metric is and how it is calculated.
But first RMS is for you to study. Homework, before you go back to the future, GFF. You have to earn your ticket. BTW nobody is laughing at your jokes, they still suck.

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.  Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering? 

geoffkait18,603 posts11-29-2019 2:13pmHydrogen Audio? Don’t make me laugh! Ooops, too late! 😁 😁 😁

For those in my past who haven’t done so, I urge you to visit the unofficial dynamic range database and get eddicated.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Ten+years+after&album=

GFF is AI from the future, it has never been denied. Only AI could post 7.5 times a day for 7 years. The algorithms are still poor though. Hence the Turing test with the 18500 posts is definitely a fail. The jokes especially.

atdavid
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Why post a database of human intervention in mastering when the discussion is about the abilities of a data format independent of whatever decisions a human made during mastering?

>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. Music is all about dynamics. Without dynamics you have elevator music.

Here is Abbey Road on the Dynamic Range Database to analyze 👀

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles&album=Abbey+Road

Folks, this is not faulty logic. It is no logic at all.

From: https://www.maat.digital/dro2/ . This has absolutely nothing to do with whether 16//44.1 is enough or 24/96 is enough. It is like saying "blue" when I ask you what time it is.

However, since you want to selectively use this database to move forward an irrelevant argument, I can play along too. If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format, as opposed to the average dynamic range, which is more indicative of mastering choices, then virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr-max/desc

What is DR?

The DR algorithm, related to PLR (Peak–to–Loudness Ratio) or “crest factor,” specifically measures the dynamic density or lack of dynamics caused by overly aggressive dynamic compression and limiting. Although the companion DRMeter MkII provides a manual measurement of the "official" integrated DR or DRi, only DROffline and DROffline MkII can generate official values automatically and in the background.

geoffkait18,604 posts11-29-2019 3:27pm

>>>>Folks, that’s the kind of faulty logic that comes from reading technical books too much and not spending enough time in reality. The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format. What the dynamic range database shows - if you analyze it - is you’re screwed no matter which digital format you buy into. He-loo! Unless you don’t care about dynamics. In which case you’re in the wrong hobby, gentle readers. 🧑🏻‍🚀

Your analysis in incorrect. You cannot go by max dynamic range only because the max can occur very infrequently on a given album or even only once or one one track. That is precisely why the database provides minimum and average and maximum dynamic range. You would be much better off choosing average and/or minimum dynamic range if you wish to see how *overly compressed* a given album is. Thanks for playing along, anyway. Better luck next time.

VI,

The whole point of the database is to keep track of how recording engineers and the industry are compressing music (unnecessarily). It is not relegated just to CD, but has been happening to Vinyl as well since the early 70's. It is a choice. The Average shows the decisions of the recording engineer. The peak is most reflective of the format potential. A CD or digital download can use it's peak DR throughout the whole CD if it so chooses. With vinyl, you will literally jump the track with too much DR, and you are limited in track space. The time is 4:04pm VI, not blue.

geoffkait

The discussion of dynamic range and the dynamic range database has *everything* to do with the discussion of data rate, sampling rate and format

Yes, of course. That should be obvious to anyone, unless perhaps they are seeking an argument.
atdavid

If you look at the peak dynamic range, which is the best indicator of the technical ability of the format ...

I’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.

... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

So what?

You totally don’t get it. There are relatively few instances in over 100,000 entries where the dynamic range of the same issue of CD is higher than the vinyl issue. That’s just the way things are. You lose again. Einstein has the same affliction, arguing wrongly until he was blue in the face. 🥶 So you’re in good company. 😬

I never said vinyl was immune from over-compression. That’s putting words in my mouth I did not say. However, vinyl over the years has fared much better than digital. Just look at the data. Hel-loo!

Whack a mole! The sport of kings. I’m thankful for this opportunity to play Whack-a-mole, in the future there are no more audio forums.

To someone who actually understands this data, and understands how it is calculated, then no, it is not an assertion, no more than my claim that 1+1 = 2.  You probably don't even know that while dynamic range is in the title, it is not even really a measure of dynamic range, but crest factor, from the average sound level, to the peak sound level over an arbitrary 3 second interval. The average, peak, min, are for the songs themselves, so that lists the average of all songs on the album, the minimum for the album, and the maximum for the album on a song by song basis.

The peak is more representative of the format, as it shows what is possible. Digital has no issues with playing loud all the time. Vinyl doesn't as there is not enough track space.

But that all said, this databases is not and was never intended to be an indication of what is possible in any format, but to push the industry to stop compressing CDs (and vinyl) so much, something that has been happening since the 70's, before CD existed.

That VI (or you) brings this up at all, really distracts from and adds nothing to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough.

cleeds2,593 posts11-29-2019 4:05pmI’m not sure that’s even remotely true. It’s just another of your "opinion stated as fact" assertions.

... virtually all the top peak dynamic range albums are download, or CD (or unknown).

Gosh, atdavid just found that out AND is trying to make us believe he’s the only one who knows. To think, people accuse me of shooting fish in a barrel. The funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

No, VI, it actually does not. It tracks with a group of people, particularly with audiophiles, but anyone who has rented a car, invariably to find the bass cranked, knows that all musical tastes are not the same, nor are all listening environments the same.  All the database reveals, for the 4th time is decisions made at recording, NOT the format, not even what the preference of the majority of the populace likes.


Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion of whether 24/96 is enough?  Do you even understand that that is what this thread is about?

I think we can all assume that since one of the great "proponents" of subjective evaluation can't offer anything in this area that refutes 24/96 being enough, then we can assume it is.  Thanks for clarifying that VI.

geoffkait18,612 posts11-29-2019 5:27pmThe funny thing is the data in the dynamic range database tracks (no pun intended) perfectly with listening results. But atdavid would rather fight than listen.

The defense is being argumentative and badgering the witness. The prosecution rests. 

All I have to say is, I’ll get rid of my vinyl LPs when digital media gets to 128 bit, 4.4 MHz. That’s when the resolution/sampling approaches the infinite resolution of analog, with its zero samples/second music information.

I will just assume you were making a joke wolfie62 ....

Joke or no joke, Messieurs Nyquist, Shannon and Monty comment like this:

The most common misconception is that sampling is fundamentally rough and lossy. A sampled signal is often depicted as a jagged, hard-cornered stair-step facsimile of the original perfectly smooth waveform. If this is how you envision sampling working, you may believe that the faster the sampling rate (and more bits per sample), the finer the stair-step and the closer the approximation will be. The digital signal would sound closer and closer to the original analog signal as sampling rate approaches infinity.

However, the truth is:

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn’t affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.

The reason why The Industry kept increasing the bit rate and sampling rate is largely due to the simple fact that stock off-the-shelf untreated Redbook CDs 💿 played on stock untreated CD players sounded thin, harsh, two dimensional, bland, irritating, flat, unemotional, unnatural, boomy, screechy, and like papier-mâché. These severe issues with sound quality were not (rpt not) helped much by increasing bit rate and sampling rate, unfortunately, for the reasons I list below, I.e., the SYSTEM wasn’t good enough.  For obvious reasons, the incessant releases of remastered CDs didn’t help much with sound quality either, I.e., Dynamic Range over-compression.

Let’s review the most prominent things that affect CD system sound quality, shall we? Room acoustics, power cords, vibration isolation, resonance control of the player, resonance control of the CD, aftermarket fuses, wire directionality 🔛 and reduction of scattered laser light interference. You could say it was the Tweakers vs The Industry.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. 🥚

I think wire directionality is key. It influences the entropy of the data and can easily corrupt it. That's why NASA orders expensive directional cables for their infrastructure. Also power cords are important. Get the best possible, cannot be too thin: 
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/super-cable-2.jpg
The fuses- books can be written about them. Gold reference fuses are the minimum. The least important is the room acoustics, this can be easily improved with the carpet in front of the speakers.

Well, shut ,my mouth and call me cornpone! I has no idea that there were audiophiles at NASA.

https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4206458/Why-is-NASA-audio-so-bad-

Of course there are. They read diyaudio an audiogon  and pressed the agency for changes since that article above. 

I used to be on the NASA (Voice) network back in the 70s at Goddard Space Flight Center for launches at Kennedy. Trust me, the sound of voice was clear as a bell and clean as a whistle. Voice quality was required to be 5x5. Besides nobody with any sense listens to diyaudio. 10-4. 🧑🏻‍🚀

I had A/B'd the Chord 2 Qute in my systems against my (now ancient) Threshold DAC 2 and Threshold DAC 1/E. It was equal to the former and very, very slightly bested the latter. I also have listened to store systems with the Chord D.A.V.E. and thought them no better than mine.
So, the answer to your question is : No, you don't need anything better than 24/44. 

Roger and out.

Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?

It’s actually that young people have been used to the distortion and noise their entire lives. They don’t know the difference. 

atdavid

Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it.

I've never noticed that and can only wonder what led you to that conclusion. Most people don't care much about sound quality and younger people - based on attendance at audio shows and presence in dealer showrooms - seem as a group to be especially disinterested. But those young people who do care about sound quality seem to be the ones driving the vinyl resurgence, further casting doubt on your claim.

Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?

Information overload? From listening to a CD? Not likely.

... and if listening to a CD could induce "information overload," just imagine what might happen at a live concert!

atdavid, it would appear, has bottomed out. 

They are listening to vinyl on cheap systems. It is purely a nostalgia thing. They actually do care about sound, but they are driven by convenience. They are every bit as interested in music as older people are, they just have different tastes than the generation before them .... just like almost every other generation.  My kids listen to digital music for hours on end. They never complain about listening fatigue. That would never occur to them, no more than someone driving for hours complains about listening fatigue from their car stereo.


They not only don't "dislike" dynamically compressed music, they seem to prefer it. Look at what sells. Look at the music that is played in clubs which seems to lack any variance in volume.

Live concert would not inherently be dynamically compressed. That would all depend on the artist. It will be loud though. I must say as I get older, less and less of my age-peers are interested in going to concerts.

@atdavid, "Has anyone ever noticed that it is mainly old people that complain about CDs and digital. Young people don't experience listening fatigue with it. Maybe old brains just get information overload listening to digital?"

This made me think of how little impact we audiophiles have on the actual delivery of music. Almost zero.

It's always been a business always driven by the chase for profits - and very little little else.

My dad listened to music via radio, valve amp driven vinyl and home recordings he made on his portable reel to reel deck.

I listened to music via transistors powering vinyl, cassette, minidisc, CD, radio, MP3 and streaming.

My children have only known music delivered in a digital format, usually via CD, MP3, YouTube and streaming.

The industry is only ever interested in delivering formats to the large consumer dog, and not its tiny audiophile tail. 

So it's understandable that each generation may have little experience of the way the previous one listened to music.

The general consumer driven assumption that products keep getting better is, as many audiophiles know, not always true.
There are even some who believe that for the pure reproduction of the spoken voice, things have hardly progressed since the days of the wax cylinder!

Let's also remember that the anachronistic current vinyl resurgence was primarily influenced by club culture experience, not by any wish for better sound quality. The record industry was not slow in cashing in. 

So far it remains the only format that came back to any significant extent. 

Redbook CD is more or less dead, so naturally enough the industry looks for other means to generate income. If 24/96 is deemed profitable then that's where it will go. 

Whether audiophiles actually need it is more or less irrelevant.

For the OP’s original question about 24/96. The answer I think is an emphatic no. Hell 16/44 keeps getting better as the DACs improve over time to the point that it sounds damn good. Mind you old, 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. 

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..

Wow! Did I just read that? Someone is suggesting that audiophiles start copying what teenagers listen to? OMG! Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! 😱