Well, I'll start by saying that this article has very good points, especially explaining masking windows of distortion vs. the fundamental. Not only that, it breaks down both the components of Signal-to-noise-and-distortion ratio very well, I commend this aspect.
But there is a problem with the approach of the article and the video, it assumes that the measurement only matters for audibility. The importance of these measurements is vital in the design and testing phase of audio products, not just to assure audible transparency, also technical competency (or any other objective like the addition of the desired distortion in case of some amplifiers designed for it). In terms of audibility, the sensitivity of the ear is pretty limited, being sounds masked if they are from -30 (or -40-50 depending on the research you read) dBr to -infinite (threshold of hearing masking) from reference, this area where the fundamental can mask close-by sounds is called the masking window (being the line that defines the function the masking threshold). It is level and frequency-dependent due to our ears and how they are more sensitive to some frequencies than to others. On top of that, our hearing is not linear but follows the equal-loudness contour that states our insensitivity at low frequencies and our increased sensitivity at high frequencies.
Before discussing audibility, I want to state the use of objective metrics such as SINAD/THD+N/ENOB is completely acceptable in its current form if used to rank the technical performance of a device, regardless of audibility, also being general enough of including single-point variables. Why? These describe the addition of mathematically-unwanted signals or components to the desired output of the transfer function (or its real-world approximation). These objective measurements allow us to measure the interaction of noise and distortion (both unwanted) and add them into a single number. Now, the single number is just at best an overall representation, like any other single measurement. If a more in-depth examination is warranted, reporting noise and distortion measurements separately can reveal more about the characteristics of a device. In this case, ears do not need to intervene since their insensitivity is more of a liability than an asset, because they are pretty bad at picking up nonlinearities unless they are high in amplitude and in the right frequency region.
In terms of audibility, I am in agreement with the article, especially in the distortion part.
Now, the approach of the article suggests that SINAD is the only metric given in measurements (except in the last part). We do rank by SINAD, but the reviews of every place I see that provides measurements have many more, in-depth measurements exploring the components of this aggregate number. SINAD is a good 'welcome' measurement that invites you to explore the other measurements that compose it.
Another point that I am somewhat in disagreement with is the title and the conclusion. Why should we settle for less performance (assuming subjective qualities and features are the same) when we can get more? For the ones looking for fidelity, if there are offerings of DACs and amplifiers in the range of 120 dB SINAD (as I said, it is just a general measurement, go to the review for specifics), why buy the ones that score worse when we can build both devices at the same price. If they had more features, that is a valid point; if you like how they look or feel, that is another valid point; but if you want fidelity, even if you are not really going to hear it, why settle for less? Even if you won't hear it, let your ears do their filtering, put their shortcomings on the faithful sound that hits them. It also gives you peace of mind in terms that at least the limiting factor by a huge lot is going to be your ears.
TL;DR: SINAD matters for technical aspects or preference of fidelity by the user. Do not buy by SINAD only, your ears won't hear it.