That's kind of the thing, and why record companies have no need to please the author of this article -- developing better tech would be pointless. People are into it for the experience/nostalgia, not for the sound quality.
> Yes, and it's not pointless. The higher resolution music shows itself as soundstage, not details. It's as pointless as saying, eyes can see 60FPS at most anyway, so higher frame rates are useless.
Bit depth manifests as dynamic range. Unless you need to reproduce accurately a recording that both contains the faintest buzzing mosquito, and a jackhammer right next to your ear, it's got plenty dynamic range for anyone's listening needs. Having more is useful for audio editing, not because it sounds better.
Low bit depth audio just sounds noisy, otherwise it's understandable just fine. I think the early Game Boy Pokemon games had 1 bit audio for the cries.
High frequencies are IMO mostly pointless for anyone with the money to spend on audio hardware. We have the best hearing as children, so unless you're a wealthy 12 year old you probably won't benefit from anything above 20 KHz. I've had my hearing tested and they don't even bother going much higher than somewhere around 12 KHz which I already perceive very, very faintly.
Sure, Bluetooth audio can be noticeably bad, but that's because Bluetooth just wasn't made for that and it was shoehorned in later.