The article is interesting, and I would not spend the crazy amounts that some people do on cables, but cable quality does still matter.

First of all, the article says that one area it definitely does make a difference is:

Interference-prone environments: Poorly shielded cables can pick up interference, affecting signal quality. However, these tests show a broader point. Detecting audible differences is surprisingly difficult when visual cues, price, and expectation are removed. Without context or labels, even ridiculous conductors fail to produce reliably noticeable changes.

However, the tests arent testing for interference at all. They're performed openly on a desk without much around, but it then goes on to conclude:

If wet mud and bananas don’t degrade the signal in ways listeners can detect, then subtle improvements from expensive cables are even less likely to be audible. In other words, the threshold for hearing real differences is far higher than marketing often implies.

Like yes, there is obviously marketing hype, especially if buying a name brand cable, but the quality of shielding legitimately can make a difference, especially if you're running it alongside power cables / extension cords.

The other factor that can make a difference, has nothing to do with audio quality but just physical convenience, in that pure Copper cables will be more expensive, but thinner and more flexible, then Copper Clad Aluminum (CCA). CCA is cheaper, and if your runs are static and unmoving there's zero issue with it, but if you're moving your speakers around a bunch, the stiffness compared to copper can be annoying.