Past around 320kbps or 16/44.1 the differences can actually be easily ignored
(with enough booze) Seriously though (hindi bagay ah) it get's really hard to tell the difference. Differences might be small enough to be masked by say the aircon running. Bigger differences are more likely due to the production of the tracks themselves.
Going back to the voltage steps the easy way to think of it is that 16bits has over 65k values and 24 bit has closer to 17 MILLION possible values. When people see how dynamic range goes up as well, we assume that we just keep piling on the output volts and that with 24bit you'll blow your head off or liquefy if you use it all
ergo it is useless. If I understand correctly these values are split between zero and the highest output on the analog end of the conversion. This is a poor analogy but I think it kind of works. The output voltage is the size of your screen and the values are the size of the pixels. The pixels aren't the same size. By going from a 42" plasma, adding pixels didn't grow your screen into an iMax screen, the pixels just got smaller and denser, you still have a 42" screen. If you max out level, max level will still be, say, the typical 2v output.
I agree with much of the article actually especially the part about the advantages of recording on 24 bit vs 16 bit having done so myself. The added headroom towards 0dBfs means I can set levels higher and not be afraid of clipping as early. The effect is that I don't need a safety net or parachute in the form of a compressor/limiter. This alone makes a recording sound less processed because it is less processed.