I am not angry at science. But I find it surprising when people in general, including scientists, are so convinced they know already everything they need to know, that they start to argue in form of unproven statements (noise) instead of looking at the question (signal) - maybe a distraction strategy?
So far you have shown nothing of interest.
So true for you, at least regarding this "dialogue".
DSP is not my specialization
Probably, because either what you mean by "truncation" is different from what on a technical level it should be, or it seems you are not able to think at the bit-level. It may well be, when analyzing the audio of a truncated signal, one can find some difference (frequency, phase, distortion or whatever) compared to the original signal and then this difference is called truncation artefact.
But here we are looking at bit operations. Throwing away the lowest bits does not alter the higher bits in any way. So if that is done to two identical signals, the higher bits of both signals are still identical. If then after the truncation the identical higher bits of both signals are subtracted (phase inverted summation) they null out. Total silence, Null. You can amplify (=multiply) Null not only by 96dB but whatever you want and still get Null (=total silence).
Which means: The error we are listening to is not a result of truncation (if that word still means what it should on a technical level). I can not say if the error is caused by 32-bit floating point processing in principle or if the cause is some implementation detail in the signal flow of Pyramix, maybe a difference in the implementations of ClipGain vs. Fader-Gain in the mixer.
just run the experiment yourself again mixing down to 32 bit instead of 24 bit
There must be some reason, why you continue to not read carefully.
... small computational errors in the 32 bit float math ... will have to show ... that the verifiable difference is a perceptually relevant one ...
In my mixes the difference comparing the different versions of the mixdown was not small, it was far more obvious than the difference between dither on/off. The question is, what is "relevant"? 24-bit audio playback was not "relevant" when the CD was introduced. Some audio professionals do not use dither, because for their results it is not relevant. Some audio professionals do employ digital clipping (to a certain degree), some purposely because they like it's sound. Some people use freeware audio sequencers, because for them leading edge sound quality is not relevant.
I do not have to show anything. I am not doing the work of other people here for nothing. This was a feature request. I tried to give some arguments for why this feature could be interesting. Some people find ridiculing this feature request more relevant than the request itself.
Hihi, that was a good one. But seriously, you could read the description of the experiment. Or try it yourself and see if you get similar results.