Mark white actually wrote that in an article.  He was talking about distance of the meter from the weapon in testing, and as that usually occurs inside 40 meters most under 15 meters. As this is the case it may only accurately apply for 10-25 meters, I was using 30meters as the distance- obviously there is a point at which sound dampening efficiency loss happens with silencers- why not in the atmosphere as well?

To me the DB reduction figures tell me one thing clearly- whether something is quieter or louder.  1DB is something I barely can tell, 3DB's is something I can easily notice.  

To quantify 32Db reduction into 97% is something I cannot do.  It doesn't sound like I'm listening to 3% of the original sound, so I think the logarithmic debate is something for scientists and not for human ears.  

I wasn't suggesting that 165 meters meant no sound, I was suggesting that 32 meter separation from a standard M4 is probably hearing safe.  I would like to have someone test it to show how close to accurate that opinion is.  

I wouldn't be too surprised if 165 meters dropped sound to 104Db's the point wasn't to suggest it was constant forever, but to suggest ~32 meters likely drops ~32Db's. So if you are standing 32 meters away from an M4 in an open field without baffles, and someone fires facing to your front (away), the noise intensity at your ear is probably similar to what it will feel with most of the decent silencers on the market when you are firing with the ejection port 8 inches from your face.  

Basically communication on the internet is a giant fuckfest, and everyone's looking for a weak link to poke at.  This doesn't mean I'm ignorant, or you are ignorant, what it does mean is we are all assholes.  

You already have a major authority on the subject suggesting why 50% would be more accurate to a human ear.  I was aware of the logarithmic argument and cheated my honest estimate over to 75% in my head, before he posted that, but honestly it does sound closer to 50% when ears still often end up ringing on the Ar15 platform, and the weapon is still sounding like a quieter gunshot.

I had a 7.62SD which is supposed to perform at up to 34.5DB's on a 5.56 weapon according to AAC, and my ears would still ring lightly and I could feel discomfort when firing it on my 10.5" gun.  3% ???   < that figure reminds me of machinist instructors talking about cutting RPMs "in theory".   Science and theory and what actually occur can be two different things.  

In theory end mills shouldn't ever chatter, dull prematurely, overheat, work-harden materials, or blow up, but in reality sometimes they do.

Scientifically speaking, my ears shouldn't have been ringing.  (that 168DB report should become 133.5), well under hearing safe, above 98% reduction in sound.

Maybe the action noise on an M4 is over 140? <if that's the excuse for this, 97% should not be used on devices 95% of customers put on M4's as that would then be missleading data.

That would be  cool experiment.  You would probably need to do this inside a building with the barrel noise insulated to the outside, and then again with a high-performance silencer to see if action noise was different with the silencer.  

That would also might tell us the sound level at which the theoretical maximum sound reduction transferable to the firer would be obtained.  

I don't know if that formula is correct.  Those numbers seem just a little generous.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't notice much more than a tonal change in the sound up to 10 decibels on an M4.

You could probably get 10Db's out of a 1.5" silencer 2.25" long with one baffle and an endcap and a .260" bore.