[masklinn]

So what you're saying "actually does make sense" so long as it's a completely different subject than what one would normally assume in context, without you having mentioned such.

When people talk about 24 bits (and >48kHz) in the context of "audiophilia", it's generally about the data at rest and "HD audio" (aka 24 bit music files and downloads). Not about the bit depth of the processing pipeline for which it's generally acknowledged that yes, >16 bit depth does make sense for the audio processing pipeline (as well as the original recording).

[SomeoneFromCA]

Extra bits won't hurt anyway. DAC are not ideal, and there is a comment above about the dynamic range. If your recording is not loud, you lose your dynamic range (say, if your loudest sound is only 40% of the full amplitude, you've already lost more than 1 bit), which can be partially recovered by a higher precision DACs. So it is true in both senses.

[masklinn]

> Extra bits won't hurt anyway.

Nobody said it would hurt so I’m not sure why you’re pointing out the consensus like it’s some sort of profound statement.

> If your recording is not loud, you lose your dynamic range

If your sound engineer is wasting your dynamic range, maybe get a better sound engineer? And if they manage to fuck up something at the core of their job, there’s no reason they wouldn’t fuck up just as much with 24 bits to waste.

> So it is true in both senses.

In no meaning of “true” and “both” in common use.