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

See what I mean Porscheracer. GK's target market is people who don't think for themselves.  Therefore, instead of providing information on C2 error rates, discussing the SNR of the detection system, discussing the off-angle rejection ratio of the optical system, or frankly anything relevant, he posts a link to a generic article in an attempt to make it look like he knows what he is doing, and yet, he has not even done the most basic of tasks, defining the nature of the problem.

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason, Ethan. I’ve explained the nature of the problem many times. Is your memory shot or are you lying? It’s hard to tell which. You can’t follow the discussion on many threads. Maybe you need a vacation, Ethan.

Yup Porscheracer, he will triple and quadruple down. He could simply provide easily measured error rates, jitter from CD players common in the audiophile world, heck anything. Nope, more subterfuge.  Next he will probably give us the reasons why amplifiers cannot provide 250db SNR.  GK, you could simply say 24/96 is good enough and let it go, not provide multiple irrelevant posts that show you have nothing to refute 24/96 is enough.

No, I will not accept that 25% of the data is missing. You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to begin. You are spreading lies and misinformation.

Not having read *every* post i like the direction of the OP and Geoff....
first, most of what we like and don't seems to be locked in at recording and mastering.  Listen to some 50 year old Verve and Mercury recordings - superb in 16/44. Now listen to Supertramp Crimes of the  Century on CD.  I rest my case.
Red book (16/44) gives us 96 dB snr vs most analog (which remember, we like) at 60-70 with a tail-wind. The problems must lie elsewhere - yea, they exist, but not in the fundamental coding.
A recording engineer can easily squander 20dB of SNR by getting the level check wrong. That, to me, is the big benefit of 24/96 -- in the studio it allows for another 8 bits of mistakes before we can hear it :-)  No, seriously.
Time domain errors have little to do with coding format, and we still have not tamed those.  Maybe Bob Stuart is right, maybe wrong, but he's chasing at lest one of the right topics.
I just want good, simply recorded, simply produced 16/44  -- badly done 24/96 just reveals all the awful warts.
Heck, i just heard "ripple" in 192 mp3 (!!!) sound fantastic (on a pretty superb system).  Case closed.

G