Is it? What is your reasoning? And why would you pick 32-bit, instead of 24-bit or 64-bit or something else?
Actual audio equipment has a noise floor. The encoding depth you use also has a noise floor. If the noise floor of the encoding is far below the noise floor of the signal, then it won't be perceptible.
So you choose to put your noise floor at some amount below the existing noise floor. Not infinitely below, because that would require infinite bits. This is the reasoning you'd use for 24-bit audio, which has a very comfortable noise floor of -144 dB, which leaves a large margin even for extreme low-noise professional equipment (you might see -120 dB ish for extremely good equipment).
At 24-bit, even passive components like transformers and resistors are contributing measurable amounts of noise.
The reason you might pick 32-bit in practice is so that you can have lots of headroom for some DSP algorithm, or do lots of sums of different signals without accumulating quantization error. The final "archive" file will still have worse than 24-bit precision.
Actual audio equipment has a noise floor. The encoding depth you use also has a noise floor. If the noise floor of the encoding is far below the noise floor of the signal, then it won't be perceptible.
So you choose to put your noise floor at some amount below the existing noise floor. Not infinitely below, because that would require infinite bits. This is the reasoning you'd use for 24-bit audio, which has a very comfortable noise floor of -144 dB, which leaves a large margin even for extreme low-noise professional equipment (you might see -120 dB ish for extremely good equipment).
At 24-bit, even passive components like transformers and resistors are contributing measurable amounts of noise.
The reason you might pick 32-bit in practice is so that you can have lots of headroom for some DSP algorithm, or do lots of sums of different signals without accumulating quantization error. The final "archive" file will still have worse than 24-bit precision.