Application is key to the benefits of even 24 bit. For example, when recording a concert sound reinforcement system, the following section from Rane says it all.
"For sound systems, the maximum loudness level is what is achievable before acoustic feedback, or system squeal begins. While the minimum level is determined by the overall background noise. It is significant that the audio equipment noise is usually swamped by the HVAC (heating, ventilating & air conditioning) plus audience noise. Typical minimum noise levels are 35-45 dB SPL (sound pressure level), with typical loudest sounds being in the 100-105 dB SPL area. (Sounds louder than this start being very uncomfortable, causing audience complaints.) This yields a typical useable system dynamic range on the order of only 55-70 dB -- quite different than unit dynamic ranges."
IMO, nature, Foley, measurement, and other applications where it's possible for dynamic ranges exceeding the 120db range of human hearing to be recorded, 32bit should be able to make it easier, since you wouldn't have to actually experience the highest peaks and lowest signal down into the noise floor to set gain in actual application.
For those of us taping bands off the PA, 65db dynamic range is all we have to harness. 24 bit provides more than enough margin to capture that range and give the taper a wide sweet spot for level setting.
These machines are awesome, but within the subject of 24 bit recording, we've beaten the topic of 192khz sampling rate to death on this forum, and I haven't read any posts that credibly argue it's value for concert recording. The need for 24/96 is even questionable in that application, IMO.