The article makes a common and not surprising mistake. Highlighted in these two sentences:

1) >The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else.>

2) The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB.

Yes, this would be the case if all music, and all sound elements of a movie (dialogue, sfx, ambience, music) were recorded with one stereo microphone set up, all at the same time. All elements coming together at the same time tend to have very little dynamic range - and it's long been debated whether stereo symphonic recordings sound all that different in 16 or 24-bit.

However - this is not how most music production, and sound production work.

Dialogue on its own; an acoustic guitar on its own; each individual drum in a drum set all have significant dynamic range. The ability to capture this range in more extreme degrees (a benefit of higher bit-rate) from each individual instrument means that when all elements are summed together into a full production, you have a significant quality difference. And in many different ways: in terms of perceived difference between loud / quiet passages, the impact that effects like reverb, compression have on transients and reverb / sustain tails, in the clarity and range of the instruments (especially guitar, drums, voice, gun fire) and especially the overall noise floor: the ability to record with much more headroom means you can record further above the noise floor at higher bit rates. It also means you can push saturation points on digital software emulations of analog gear.

So no, I'm not lying. I do this every single day - and have tested 16 / 24 bit recordings countless times. There has never been a single case that the 16-bit summed mix has ever sounded equal to 24-bit. That's after about 12 years working at 24-bit in almost every genre I can think of. Despite an ongoing debate, I can still hear significant differences in stereo recordings done back to back at 16 vs. 24 bit. The 24 bit always feels more natural - natural meaning, it doesn't feel compressed, which is what I think 16-bit sounds like. The same goes not just for recordings but playback. Playing back a 24 bit recording after it has been brought down to 16-bit always feels emptier and of less quality.

So yes, the article is correct that the only benefit of higher bit-rate is an extension of dynamic range (like I said originally) - but to think this has no effect on the quality of audio production is ridiculous.

EDIT: If this thread is still alive tomorrow morning, I'll post an example and see if anyone can tell the difference.