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

no reason to bother above 24/96 or below 16/44.1 but....
the truth is no one really knows about any specific file you play -what's it's history?and this debate has been going on forever
most 24/96 files you will encounter weren't recorded at 24/96 but upsampled that's one of the reasons why modern audiophiles are so neurotic about bitrate some people cheat! the only way is to get all the versions compare them and find the best sounding version in your system.
i miss cd's...you would play a cd knowing it sounds good not looking for flaws only enjoying music. look at us now more than 20 years after ,still trying to figure out how to play digital music maybe ripping our own cd's is better than streaming? ...maybe not paying for music got us this punishment

I tend to think 16/44khz is a product of scientists who knew what they were doing, and hi-rez is usually the product of marketers who know how to spin a tale.  If the hi-rez purveyors are not sampling from analog tape, they'll likely selling refried beans.

The counter-(oranges) argument is a test that claimed double-blind viewers preferred watching 8k on a 65-inch TV even though they could not see a difference. "Double-blind viewing"? 

Personally, I agree with Erik on DACs.  I can't hear a difference between 16/44  Blood-on-Tracks and the hi-rez offering on a top modern DAC.

@erik_squires 
@electroslacker 
@plga

I totally agreed, 16/44 is awesome when mastered and played back properly.