Even with high quality audio equipment it's hard distinguish in A-B comparison, because there are too many variables in the "game". The weakest link is the human ears: they're simply not great. Most people don't even have the audio range of 20Hz - 20KHz.
PS: Here's a pretty popular audio test: http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
That link only confirmed that I indeed could hear differences, even with the really rather bad selection of material, and discussable manner of relaying it.
In my opinion your statements are predominantly judging, oversimplifying and categorizing people and their different manners and capabilities of appreciating music and audio.
I'd rather enjoy Chet Baker on my mono clock radio, than Katy Perry or JayZ on DSD512.
So sometimes I am an audiophile, and sometimes I am a romantic drunk.
But I try to get the most out of both, and don't assume there is one truth which everybody should agree on.
And something else to think about maybe; you are contradicting yourself a little bit.
You say "some of those audiophiles" enjoy music on vinyl, while it is in your opinion "technical inferior". (which is by the way true in some aspects, and wrong in a few other)
So here you are stating that those 'audiophiles' shouldn't be enjoying music from vinyl so much since vinyl is 'technically inferior'?
So technique all of a sudden does matter then?
The one thing we can establish for sure though, is that this topic is probably not really for you, is it?