I had cataracts a number of years ago and I had to reserve what reading I could do for work related stuff so I began listening to audiobooks. Because of a childhood injury they were unwilling to do lens replacement surgery until it got so bad that it was worth risking blindness. It went well.
Anyway there was about a 6 year period where I listened to audiobooks because I couldn't read. Then when I was able to read again I did a bit of it but I still listened to audiobooks until I got my first Kindle in 2009. At that point I went back to reading and I've been reading ever since.
I still listen to an occasional audiobook, not usually for any particular reason. I guess I listen to 2 or 3 of them a year. i read 50 or 60 books a year. I'm a fairly slow reader but I do read a bit faster than I listen but that really isn't a factor for me. I read or listen for pleasure and I'm not in any rush.
I think there are some books that work better as audioobooks and others that work better as print books, but most are fine either way. I also have noticed that when I was listening I would listen to books that I probably wouldn't have read. Thrillers are fun as audiobooks but I don't really enjoy reading them. Books with obtuse language are often better when a narrator helps me sort it out.
There are a few books that were so perfectly narrated that if I decide to reread them I'm sure I'll listen. Jeffery Eugenides' "Middlesex" is a good example of that. Another is Graham Greene's "Monsignor Quixote". Probably also "The Girl with the Pearl Earring". I still have them and I'm sure I'll hear them again in time. I have the ebooks but I doubt I'll read them.
I think reading and listening can be a pretty different experience but I don't think either is more "real" or legitimate or valid than the other. A book is a book is a book. The point of reading novels is pleasure and I think everyone should do what they like.
One problem with audiobooks is that they're very dependent on the quality of the narrator. About half the narrators are okay and the other half are terrible and, strangely, nobody can ever agree which group any particular narrator belongs to. Every time I listen to Dick Hill narrate a book I wish I was reading it myself. He's terrible. And I do realize that's a minority opinion. But i'm right and the other people in the world are wrong!
George Guidall or Simon Vance can make even poor books a pleasure.
Interestingly, there are some really good actors who are terrible narrators. Ed Asner and Bruce Dern, for example. Life is full of mysteries. Probably the single worse narration I've ever heard was done by Burt Reynolds, not a great actor but a fun one.
Barry