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

Optimize,
You are technically correct and I misspoke, so let me clarify. Yes the red book format has remained the same as the parameters which define it are static. What I really was trying to explain are the two things that have changed over the course of the consumer digital lifespan namely;
1) recording and mastering engineers (the good ones anyway)have at their disposal better front end A/D equipment and have developed processes and systems which allow for better sounding music to get into the digital medium to start with and,
2) the consumer equipment performing the D/A conversion has gotten MILES better particularly in the past 5-7 years or so.
None of this should be surprising as the format matures and I’m certain digital has only begun its long and exciting optimization process. Looking to analogue which has been around probably 3 times as long as digital yet continues to get better as technology progresses.

Just want to chime in here and (again) point out... that the best “audio reproduction” will always be beholden it’s source!!!  The original audio capture (and all the attention to details) in that initial “record”, is the essence we all try to preserve through our audio playback chain. As mentioned earlier... Tony Manasian’s exquisite and pure music recordings are special “reference audio” to be (enjoyed!) but also give you one of the MOST accurate windows, into the nuances of your (individual) playback-reproduction chain!

 If you are an audiophile, you will want to experience these sonic gems, on your own system!

What about the newer advances in physical media-shm discs from japan as well as the gold disc.  These should reduce the read error rate-no?

I have the SHM SACD version of Aja. Can  barely stand to listen it, actually I can’t stand to listen to it. Atrocious sound putting it mildly. My CD version or vinyl versions sound demonstrably better. Based on this one experience I would never purchase another product from SHM. 

FWIW, just picked this up from a Google search:

Lindell B. Jones Jr., Long-time music lover. Met a handful of rock/pop stars.Answered 1 year ago · Author has 156 answers and 144.5K answer views

Not that can actually be heard under ordinary circumstances.

Using 16 bit samples gives you 65,536 (2^16) possible values to which any given sample in an audio signal can be rounded. Using 24 bit samples gives you 16,777,216 (2^24) possible values, or 256 possibilities for each possibility with 16 bit. That is a huge difference on paper, but not to your ears.

The rounding of samples to the nearest possibility creates what’s called quantization noise. With 16 bit, the dynamic range for the quantization noise is 96 dB. That’s the difference between the loudest sound that can be recorded and the threshold at which you can just barely hear any quantization noise. With 24 bit, the dynamic range is 144 dB.

Now, consider that a very quiet room in a typical home has about 30 dB of background noise. That means that to hear any quantization noise on your 16 bit recording (e.g. a normal CD), you’d have to turn the volume up so that the loudest sounds are at 126 dB. That’s about the threshold of pain for most people. So unless you plan on playing your music so loudly that it makes your ears hurt (and you have equipment that can produce that volume), 16 bits is plenty.

By the way, the 174 dB you’d need to hear quantization noise with 24 bit is loud enough to literally KILL you!

If there’s an audible difference between a 16 bit and 24 bit recording, it is most likely because the 24 bit one was mastered better, as is often the case. But 16 bits is generally more than sufficient within the limits of human hearing.

See  www DOT quora.com/Is-there-a-significant-difference-between-16-bit-and-24-bit-in-audio-accessories  

No comment from me other than it is just one gent's opinion.  And for the sale of full disclosure, I have never critically compared redbook CD (16 bit/44.1kHZ) to other hi-rez formats.  Not sure this is relevant, but my ARC CD-9SE can oversample my redbook CD playback to 176.4kHZ.  Not sure the output sounds all that much better that just playing the CD at the native 44.1kHZ sampling rate.

That said, I have critically compared my CD-9SE playing back redbook CDs source to vinyl played off my turntable.  IMO, vinyl "usually" sounds better, but not always.  I surmise that the SQ of the recording stamped onto the media (i.e., a CD versus an LP) can make a big difference in what comes out of the speakers.

For example, I recall A/B'ing a track on a CD of John Mellencamp's greatest hits to the same song on a Mellencamp record.  Interestingly, IMO, it was a photo finish of which format sounded better.  Maybe in the end, it may come down to garbage-in/garbage-out.  

What I am interested in exploring is the DAC side of my Ref CD-9SE for streaming.  Just have to get the courage and time to dip my toes into the streaming waters. 

Interesting thread.  I'll stay tuned.