"More detail"
That's not what bit depth is.
A sample is a value at a point in time. It is a number from 0 to whatever the maximum bit size which for 16 bits is 65,535. As previously explained, 16 bits covers a dynamic range of 96dB. If the sample is within 0dB and 96dB then this number is going to be between 0 and 65,535 (64K) with 64K being the loudest possible sound.
What happens if you increase this to 24 bits, for 144dB at the top? This number is going to be between 0 and 16,777,215, right?
Here's why that video is nonsense: 65,535 is the same value whether it's represented with 16 bits or with 24 bits. If the dynamic range of the input is within that 96dB "window", which it usually will be because human hearing, then you will get the EXACT SAME SAMPLES whether you use 16 bits or 24 bits.
That's the simplified explanation. You need to dig into dithering, oversampling, noise shaping, and how they affect signal-to-noise ratio. But the short version is that "more detail" and "less noise" from 24-bit files is snake oil. They don't sound better than 16-bit files
unless they use superior quality masters.
Funnily enough, you'll hear the same kind of difference when comparing a 1990s CD of a 1970s album and a contemporary CD made from a contemporary remaster of that same album. The original recordings and mixes don't change, and the CD specs don't change, so what's different?
The master.