Not really the microphones themselves since microphones today and decades ago all deliver an analog signal which contains way more information than our ears can process (but some amount of noise too which may or may not be audible).

The technology difference is in the analog-to-digital conversion (DAC) which converts that analog signal to a stream of integers.

The difference between audio and video is that essentially since the dawn of digital audio, devices have been able to produce as much information as our ears are able to distinguish. The standard digital sample rate since CDs first shipped is ~44k, which can represent frequences all the way up to 22k, which is beyond the range that almost all people are able to hear. The standard bit depth of 16 bits can likewise represent as much dynamic range as humans are able to distinguish.

(Hi-fi enthusiasts may argue with these claims but I consider that whole area to be almost entirely snake-oil and magical thinking. Actual scientific studies show that 44k 16-bit audio is indistinguishable from higher sample rates or bit depths.)

People working with audio may want higher sample rates and bit depths because, just like with coloring in the article, it gives them more leeway to change the audio while still producing a final result that covers the whole frequency and dynamic range. But for end listeners, 44k/16 is fine and has always been fine.

Video is very different. Our eyeballs can capture a monumental amount of input using a very complex, adaptive system. Eyes don't have a single well-defined "resolution" or "framerate" but basically digital video has been noticeably lower resolution and lower framerate than we're able to perceive for a long time and is only recently starting to approach perceptual limits.