The article says "I've run across a few articles and blog posts that declare the virtues of 24 bit or 96/192kHz by comparing a CD to an audio DVD (or SACD) of the 'same' recording. This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different."

It may be simultaneously true that:

A) Humans cannot tell the difference between 44.1kHz/16-bit audio and any higher resolution, and

B) For a particular song, the best commercially available 44.1kHz/16-bit version may not be the best commercially available version

While 100% true, I'd phrase B) as:

"The quality of the particular mastering can still make a noticeable difference, regardless of the ability for the digital sampling rates to perfectly represent it perceptually"

Just to be clear that the statement applies to any releases meeting the A) criteria, not just 44.1 kHz @ 16-bit ones.