I read the article, and you're being somewhat disingenuous in their conclusions, which shows that you've got an agenda of your own.
Essentially, the writer, in the first paragraph or two, declares that he's not too adept at hearing differences in audio quality, and states that those who are accompanying him are more qualified.
Also, the writer primarily writes from his view (not those accompanying him), but still concludes that, although the differences TO HIM are slight, the newer HD codecs do offer better dynamics and realism than their older, compressed counterparts. He was not claiming that the newer codecs are not better, but instead was expressing surprise at how good the 10-year-old compressed codecs really can be on good equipment.
Nobody is saying that with the newer codecs, we're suddenly hearing things we've never heard before. Just like the video aspect of BD (and HD-DVD), the video differences to some are major improvements, and to others are very subtle. Of course the same will be true with audio, and most likely, to an even greater extent. That does not mean that the audio improvements are not real, and to some of us, they're quite discernible, in just the same way that some people cannot hear the difference between an MP3 at 128kbps vs. a CD on high-quality equipment. The writer of that article concludes that, even though the improvements to him are slight, they're still worthy improvements that if you have the means to achieve, are worth it even in his opinion.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein