are audiophiles different than non audiophiles ?

There are guys out there building catapults to chuck watermelons, for god's sake. We aren't that different. Except, they have a much more realistic goal.

Audiophiles have better signal to noise.

Frogman, technically, one can not be an "audiophile", unless one has a keen interest in the equipment.

the word audiophile is made up of "audio", and "phile".

in the greek language, philos means love.

thus audiophile means lover of sound, not lover of equipment.

audiophiles vary in their criteria and designation of excellence of sound.

so, the essence of what distinguishes audiophiles from non audiophiles, is a preference for sound quality (audiophile), as compared to an indifference to sound quality (non-auidophiles).

the important question is why do some people favor one form of sensation -- sound over another ?

as people have different hobbies that emphasize different senses, e.g., sight, taste or touch, the difference between audiophiles and non audiophiles can be observed.

i suspect the essence of these differences is partly genetic and partly phenotypical. can't say which is more important.

if you consider that some people enjoy activities with movement, while others enjoy activities of taste, you will see in action the multiplicity of expression of hobbies that rely on a refined sense of something.

wine tasters and food lovers (epicures), obviously favor their taste buds.

our senses are the source of pleasure.

audiophiles get a greater percentage of their pleasure from their sense of hearing than others. that's about it.