Originally Posted by nleksan
As someone who does professional audio (and music, since apparently now it must be differentiated) production, I have spent a fair amount of money over the years on equipment. Grado PS1000/GS1000/RS1, dozens of other headphones, Speakers that range from top of the line Sonus Faber's to the unparalleled in the price range Pioneer by Andrew Jones units to (according to the "super sound men" horrible) Cerwin Vega VE12's to one of my favorite casual listening sets a pair of RTR Model V Digital 200 vintage 1980 that I got for freein pperfect condition... I am currently using a Pioneer SC-79, and a Ti HD, as in-/outputs, McIntosh solid state amps, etc. I have yet to hear a single speaker wire that sounds better than the 12AWG OFC I get from Monoprice and sleeve w EMI/RFI resistant sleeve and connect with Monoprice banana plugs.
Ihave plenty of recordingside equip ment, and a lot of variations on the above mentioned.
I don't care about bragging or "equipment compensation", I only say this to give an indication of what I use day in and day out.
That said, I think "audiophiles" are comedy gold. Onthe production side, there's a reason for recording, editing, and mixing at 32bit depth and 96-192khz, because it makes it easier for us to identify and remove or correct errors. The best possible analogy I can give is that it's like having two separate computers, identical in every way, each having its own 3840x2160p 32" display. On one, it's running a game with say FXAA/SMAA + 4xMSAA. The other, same game but at 4x4 Super-sampling. I will argue that the difference between the two is imperceptible, provided you are a normal person and like to enjoy games rather than dissect the tiny visual flaws.
However, if you are using the computer for graphics design, suddenly the ability to scale and re-sample the image makes it easier toiimprove the quality for everyone.
The same thing goes for audio work. I don't know a single fellow person in pproduction who claims to hear the difference between 92 and 192khz, or that there's an audible benefit from 32 over 24 bit depth. Using frequency response analysis and so forth, however, the slight variations can be corrected VISUALLY and thanks to downsampling, without a ny loss in quality or even the ability to tell it was altered.
Regarding 124dB SNR...
It is pure, unadulterated marketing.
If you want to know how loud that is, I can give you an example...
I have a Noveske billet receiver short-barrelled AR chambered for 300BLK. 10.4" Barrel, 11.5" free-floating rail, Magpul CTR Stock, Tangodown battlegrip, Troy HK-type BUIS, Giesselle SFA trigger, Magpul PMAG II'S, Surefire G2ZX 500/25lum dual-mode weaponlight on a DD Offset mount, Troy mid-sized VFG, EOTech EXPS3 holographic sight and G33 3x magnifier both w Troy QRS mounts, and currently an AAC Blackout muzzle brake.
The 300BLK is designed as a 30cal AR round requiring only a new bbl, to fire from a short barrel better than anything else (my own 10-16" 556 AR's firing at 2485-2830fps don't have the accuracy of even a 9"bbl 300BLK), and which can be loaded with bullet weights ranging from 110gr to over 220gr for both supersonic and subsonic use, without the many cons of using a 556 SBR (plus the fact that subsonic 223 has about as much energy as a 22 long, while the 220gr 300BLK subs have more energy after 100yds of flight than a 44mag at the muzzle).
Currently I am using an AAC SDN762 suppressor, although a GemTech G300 (full titanium, both shroud and baffles) is on the way.
With a dBmeter a foot in front of, and a foot to the side of, the muzzle, I recorded the SPL of different rounds w and wo the can...
125gr OTM no can = 159dB
125gr OTM can = 137dB
220gr sub no can = 138dB
220gr sub can = 121dB
So, you are talking levels of sound pressure akin to firing a rifle. Keep that in mind.