but it is. dynamic range is about volume. or rather, about storing differences between volumes. higher dynamic range means you can encode bigger differences in volume. note: not "finer details", but "bigger differences". 24-bit audio will (in general case) allow you to encode signals that are 144dB apart from each other. 16-bit will allow you to encode two signals that are 96dB apart from each other.
that's what increasing resolution does. it's not giving you "more fine details" between 0 and -96dB - instead, it extends the range to -144dB. meaning, the range between -96dB and 0 is encoded exactly the same way in 16-bit and 24-bit signals. there is no improvement within that range - not audible, nor measurable, nor even mathematically possible.
actually, yes, most likely you won't hear any audible difference. you can try bitcrushing your favorite recordings and see for yourself. even classical music, which is a poster child for "muh dynamics", will not have any audible artifacts until you reach 13-14 bits of resolution.
there is no nuance to represent there. 24-bit only allows you to "represent" signals between -96dB and -144dB. the -96dB to 0dB range is represented bit-for-bit identical to 16-bit audio. you should try learning basics of digital audio some time, it's very revealing.
the irony is, going higher resolution and higher sampling rates brings you further apart from vinyl sound, not closer to it. vinyl is less fidelity than CD sound (lower dynamic range, lower frequency range), so in what universe would adding fidelity (i.e. extending dynamic and frequency range, which is what adding bit depth and sampling rate do) lead to less fidelity?
you're confusing playback with processing. there is no aliasing on playback.