User Panel
|
Thunder Beast 556 Take Down shooters ear and Milspec sound test. Dead Air Armament: Ultimate .22LR Suppressor FRP Face-Off Failed To Load Title |
|
Quoted:
For an engineer who does UL and CSA testing you sure are sending mixed signals. Is this about facts and information or entertainment? I'm done here. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
That is what I was getting at. So one could assume our meter is 1-2 on the low side if anything? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Getting back to Silencer Shop's B&K 2270, I believe it has just a little bit of bias because of the lack of sampling rate. It has almost always metered 1-2 dB lower than our NI system when shot back-to-back. |
|
Have any of you tried using 2 meters, one at the standard location and another set 50 or 100 yards away? It might be interesting to see if there is a difference in how fast the sound level drops over distance.
|
|
Quoted:
Have any of you tried using 2 meters, one at the standard location and another set 50 or 100 yards away? It might be interesting to see if there is a difference in how fast the sound level drops over distance. View Quote |
|
We have had to do some down range testing to show the military that what they are asking for isn't doable due to the sonic crack.
|
|
On the testing, standards, variables, Youtube videos
Testing - I cannot stress this enough, no reasonable and honest manufacturer is "scared" of Youtube reviews with a B&K 2270 etc, they have good reason to be against testing with the wrong equipment. If a Youtube reviewer wants to do it correct, old B&K 2209s certified can be had for less money than the newer digital meters. We do this here in Europe also with journalists etc, advising them, to prevent them from using a lot of time for a good comparison test and then not having the correct results- I am also looking after our competitors, who I know to perform better in some cases and I want that the customer has the right data to base their purchase decision on. Of course sound is only one factor among physical specs, mounting etc. But the data for it needs to be correct. Standards - The current MIL-STD 1474E is pretty much the best one available Variables - Yes, there is a lot of variables, but usually any suppressors should be be withing 1-3 dB, if shot on the same meter, gun, same ammo etc regardless where or when it was tested. Meaning a test in the winter and a test in the summer with all the same equipment Due to the barrel lengths etc, that is why we publish most of our standard hunting rifle suppressor data from 20" barrels = it is only going to be quieter at the shooters ear if shot on a longer one A good example is in the chart of page 11 here, we included a comparison figure for the SL5i suppressor on .308 Win with 24" barrel also. http://www.aseutra.fi/assets/files/pdf/Ase%20Utra%20hunting%20and%20sport%20shooting%20products.pdf Youtube etc - Not all manufacturers have the time to focus on putting tests online and spend more in R&D, manufacturing etc, to actually get the products to the customers. Not that it is a bad thing if more honest comparison data is available. We will most likely do more of this, time allowing. Best Regards! Tuukka Jokinen Sales and Marketing Manager Ase Utra sound suppressors |
|
Quoted:
We have had to do some down range testing to show the military that what they are asking for isn't doable due to the sonic crack. View Quote PM me if you don't mind sharing. RonA |
|
This thread fluctuates wildly from good info and discussion to what the actual F.
It's like we learned nothing from the early 2000's. |
|
Quoted: If you wouldn't mind sharing where exactly down range they wanted the readings, I'd be interested. Don't need to know who. PM me if you don't mind sharing. RonA View Quote One data point from memory,due to bullet flight noise you are looking at c. 150 dB on a suppressed .308 Win rifle, when measured 1 m from the flight path, 10 meters in front of of the muzzle. b/r Tuukka |
|
|
Since I took it off track, I would recommend the original poster to read a short article called, "Measuring Recreational Firearm Noise". The authors are very knowledgeable and do a good job explaining the reason for proper proper equipment for testing. One of the authors was Per Rasmussen from G.R.A.S. Sound and Vibration. Anyway, just a thought.
|
|
Quoted: I can also post some figures from several tests conducted in Finland, once in the office on Monday. One data point from memory,due to bullet flight noise you are looking at c. 150 dB on a suppressed .308 Win rifle, when measured 1 m from the flight path, 10 meters in front of of the muzzle. b/r Tuukka View Quote |
|
Late to the game - adding in our .02
1. William - cool vid appreciate the review, the SR-5 is a hell of a can. 2. Don't get caught up on numbers, too many inconsistencies and variables. 3. A good meter will run $50K plus the lab to control the testing. 4. Science matters - We have a anechoic chamber in the lab for our custom B&K Pulse system 5. Numbers don't mean sh*t on paper One last thing before this thread really derails... We post actual repeatable readings we record during testing of the product and post host and ammo used. Our numbers are as accurate and as truthful as humanly possible. |
|
|
Quoted:
Late to the game - adding in our .02 1. William - cool vid appreciate the review, the SR-5 is a hell of a can. 2. Don't get caught up on numbers, too many inconsistencies and variables. 3. A good meter will run $50K plus the lab to control the testing. 4. Science matters - We have a anechoic chamber in the lab for our custom B&K Pulse system 5. Numbers don't mean sh*t on paper One last thing before this thread really derails... We post actual repeatable readings we record during testing of the product and post host and ammo used. Our numbers are as accurate and as truthful as humanly possible. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
PHD reported his results based on his testing. However, at least 3 of us are unable to validate his findings. Perhaps "fluff piece" was a bit strong and inaccurate. I think Larson took the slide deck and made it a marketing tool, I doubt Doc would make a deck just to sell meters. View Quote The comparisons I have done on firearm peaks show the LxT1 to read generally less than 2 dB lower than my 800B (which has a measured rise time of 13 µ-sec). However, the real test is unweighted. When unweighted (LD calls it Z-weighting), the LxT1 reads 6-7 dB below the 800B. Regardless, even the 800B (or 2209) misses the peak maximum even unweighted. The B&K Pulse misses less. 2 years ago, a B&K rep passed through Boise to demo to us a Pulse system. We compared it to the 800B, and our finding were that the 800B read only 1-2 dB low when weighted, but unweighted it was closer to 4 dB low. The Pulse theoretically has a rise time in the vicinity of 2 µ-sec, but the 1/4" pressure mic they had possessed a rise time of around 7 µ-sec according to the calibration curves with it. This means simply that the best system rise time could not be any better than the weakest link. My experience has been that some of the 1/4" pressure mics have worse response curves than others. For the Pulse system, one should use a 1/8" pressure mic, and the B&K rep did not show his product in the best possible light. My experience using the 800B has been that the non-suppressed M4 (14.5" bbl) has a C-weighted SPL of 163-164 dB at the reference location, and a 10" bbl AR runs 167-168 at that location. The 20" barreled M16 runs 162. Should we be doing SPL measurements unweighted? Of course -- it is the better indication of hearing damage risk. However, use of A- or C-weighting dates back to the mid-to-late 1970s when the 2209 first came out and the early pioneers (Finn, Knight, Walsh) decided the data looked better weighted. This resulted in the new MIL-STD-1472 either specifying or permitting the use of weighting and our industry adopted weighting. Is the reference location the best place to measure? It is the best estimate of what the target will perceive. The shooter's ear is a better estimate for hearing damage risk, but we negate that benefit by using weighting. And it wasn't until relatively recently that the shooter's ear locations became defined as a specific location in space with reference to the back of the receiver. Back to the testing video. There are some unanswered questions, and I think the measurements recorded are low. First would be whether the meter had been calibrated with a certified field calibrator (such as the LD CA250, or CA200 as a less accurate second choice). Second was the measurement location (reference, 2 meter spacing instead of 1, ear?). Before I left Gemtech, sound measurements were made on a permanent field jig that positioned the weapon properly and held the microphones on separate permanent locations referencing the muzzle. We also used the 800B. Since I left, I still measure that way and Gemtech is using an LxT1, although they have requested a Pulse from the Mother House. I hope this helps. I am not an expert, but I have been playing with this stuff for a long time and I have gone through a tedious (and expensive) learning curve on sound measurements. In my opinion, the LxT1-QPR, while not quite as accurate as we would like, is better than most of the alternatives when used with weighting.' |
|
Quoted:
Late to the game - adding in our .02 1. William - cool vid appreciate the review, the SR-5 is a hell of a can. 2. Don't get caught up on numbers, too many inconsistencies and variables. 3. A good meter will run $50K plus the lab to control the testing. 4. Science matters - We have a anechoic chamber in the lab for our custom B&K Pulse system 5. Numbers don't mean sh*t on paper One last thing before this thread really derails...We post actual repeatable readings we record during testing of the product and post host and ammo used. Our numbers are as accurate and as truthful as humanly possible. View Quote Incidentally, regarding bullet flight noise, we measured 1 meter to the side of the flight path at 50 meters: 152 dB for M80 7.62NATO and 148 dB for M855 5.56NATO. |
|
Quoted:Since this is a tech forum, information presented here should be as technically accurate as possible, especially with respect to db measurements where there is a known standard to follow. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Late to the game - adding in our .02 1. William - cool vid appreciate the review, the SR-5 is a hell of a can. 2. Don't get caught up on numbers, too many inconsistencies and variables. 3. A good meter will run $50K plus the lab to control the testing. 4. Science matters - We have a anechoic chamber in the lab for our custom B&K Pulse system 5. Numbers don't mean sh*t on paper One last thing before this thread really derails... We post actual repeatable readings we record during testing of the product and post host and ammo used. Our numbers are as accurate and as truthful as humanly possible. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Late to the game - adding in our .02 1. William - cool vid appreciate the review, the SR-5 is a hell of a can. 2. Don't get caught up on numbers, too many inconsistencies and variables. 3. A good meter will run $50K plus the lab to control the testing. 4. Science matters - We have a anechoic chamber in the lab for our custom B&K Pulse system 5. Numbers don't mean sh*t on paper One last thing before this thread really derails... We post actual repeatable readings we record during testing of the product and post host and ammo used. Our numbers are as accurate and as truthful as humanly possible. View Quote |
|
Phil,
When doing the initial training with the B&K technician, we shot the PULSE against our older 2209. In weighted figures we were within 1-2 dB and unweighted, the PULSE showed 6-8 dB higher figures. On the downrange figures mentioned earlier, As mentioned, from a test conducted in Finland by Dr. Rauno Pääkkönen, C-peak figures: .308 Win 10 m directly front of the muzzle unsuppressed / suppressed 150 dB 10 m to the front of the muzzle at a 45 degree angle, unsuppressed 150 dB, suppressed 142 dB .222 Rem 10 m directly front of the muzzle unsuppressed / suppressed 150 dB 10 m to the front of the muzzle at a 45 degree angle, unsuppressed 149 dB, suppressed 140-142 dB |
|
Are you posting these videos because they use the correct meters?
|
|
|
Quoted:
This thread is incredible. View Quote The fact that we have so many industry professionals sharing their knowledge is amazing. I am grateful for their insight and expertise! As to the reviews offered online, I appreciate all data points, but I've stopped chasing decibels, I have other priorities when selecting new cans... |
|
Quoted:
As to the reviews offered online, I appreciate all data points, but I've stopped chasing decibels, I have other priorities when selecting new cans... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
As to the reviews offered online, I appreciate all data points, but I've stopped chasing decibels, I have other priorities when selecting new cans... View Quote |
|
Quoted:
This is not about chasing dBs. This is about making sure you are not buying a lemon. Sadly lots of MFGs are selling very loud cans. Using a meter that is not accurate will not help you. Especially when it under-reports. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
As to the reviews offered online, I appreciate all data points, but I've stopped chasing decibels, I have other priorities when selecting new cans... Why else would you worry about the meter lol |
|
Quoted:
Yes it is. Why else would you worry about the meter lol View Quote As I said, people like you do more harm than good. Let's keep this thread going, the more folks who see it and learn from it the better. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for the feces you peddle. |
|
Quoted: This is not about chasing dBs. This is about making sure you are not buying a lemon. Sadly lots of MFGs are selling very loud cans. Using a meter that is not accurate will not help you. Especially when it under-reports. View Quote ...Back on topic? I appreciate your passion for the silencer community and calling things as you see them. I would have never known the differences in meters used to measure sound if these types of threads did not exist. I'm happy to hear those involved in the design, R&D and production of these devices chiming in to educate "the rest of us". |
|
Quoted:
Because when customers buy a can thinking it is 124 when it is really 132, they are unhappy. That is not chasing decibels, that is DISHONEST. Chasing dBs can only happen with valid results, which you do not have. It is bad for customer, it is bad for AAC, it is bad for everybody. Cans cost hundreds, and take months to acquire. People who do reviews with bogus meters, and then stand by them, how can you trust anything else they say? They have no credibility. As I said, people like you do more harm than good. Let's keep this thread going, the more folks who see it and learn from it the better. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for the feces you peddle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes it is. Why else would you worry about the meter lol As I said, people like you do more harm than good. Let's keep this thread going, the more folks who see it and learn from it the better. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for the feces you peddle. The part in bold is flat out false. Period. Nobody who buys a can gives a flying fuck about what a meter says, they care about how the gun sounds when they shoot it with the can on. Not to mention they don't have a meter anyway, so they would never even see a dB number let alone give a shit about it. Using the word feces instead of shit doesn't make your last sentence any more appropriate for a tech forum. Not to mention the video in the OP is on the AR15.COM YOUTUBE CHANNEL. So you're saying this forum is peddling shit. Might wanna rethink that bold strategy cotton lol. |
|
Quoted:
...Back on topic? I appreciate your passion for the silencer community and calling things as you see them. I would have never known the differences in meters used to measure sound if these types of threads did not exist. I'm happy to hear those involved in the design, R&D and production of these devices chiming in to educate "the rest of us". View Quote A lot of folks got valid meters, got training, and started posting numbers. We had the MILSPEC standard, and that led to an ad-hoc by the ear standard. This really helped keep the industry honest. An honest industry is good for everybody. Gone are days of MFGs making ridiculous claims, well almost gone, some lesser know MFGs are still fudging numbers, but they are quickly called on it. The knowledge base is very high among consumers now. They are well educated. Most consumers know 124 for 556 is bogus, or 105 is bogus for 22, etc. It is much hard to fool folks, there is now a decade of very public data to look at. But some are still trying.... |
|
Quoted:
Harp for 3 pages about the meter being no good and the numbers in the video being no good and then say you aren't chasing dB LOL. The part in bold is flat out false. Period. Nobody who buys a can gives a flying fuck about what a meter says, they care about how the gun sounds when they shoot it with the can on. Not to mention they don't have a meter anyway, so they would never even see a dB number let alone give a shit about it. Using the word feces instead of shit doesn't make your last sentence any more appropriate for a tech forum. Not to mention the video in the OP is on the AR15.COM YOUTUBE CHANNEL. So you're saying this forum is peddling shit. Might wanna rethink that bold strategy cotton lol. View Quote The more you speak, the more you expose how little you know. This is a tech forum, so why are you posting and defending technically incorrect info, that EVERY SINGLE person who had something to say refuted? Not one person agrees with you that 124 is valid, or you meter is valid. |
|
Quoted:
Let the sunshine. The more you speak, the more you expose how little you know. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Harp for 3 pages about the meter being no good and the numbers in the video being no good and then say you aren't chasing dB LOL. The part in bold is flat out false. Period. Nobody who buys a can gives a flying fuck about what a meter says, they care about how the gun sounds when they shoot it with the can on. Not to mention they don't have a meter anyway, so they would never even see a dB number let alone give a shit about it. Using the word feces instead of shit doesn't make your last sentence any more appropriate for a tech forum. Not to mention the video in the OP is on the AR15.COM YOUTUBE CHANNEL. So you're saying this forum is peddling shit. Might wanna rethink that bold strategy cotton lol. The more you speak, the more you expose how little you know. |
|
|
Quoted:
If "nobody gives a flying fuck about what a meter says", why did you buy a meter and post the results? Why are you continuing to defend numbers you claim "nobody gives a flying fuck about". The more you post, the sillier you look. https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/google/119/sun-with-face_1f31e.png View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Nobody who buys a can gives a flying fuck about what a meter says, The more you post, the sillier you look. https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/240/google/119/sun-with-face_1f31e.png That's why every single person I let shoot the MaxFlow from Nex Gen loved it more than any of the other 5 cans I brought. It meters louder, but they liked the way it sounded better. By a lot. |
|
Very interesting thread.
Why is the site backing videos with flawed data? @stylz CHRIS |
|
OK, you didn't buy it you used it.
Quoted:
No end users shoot their guns with a can in front of a meter, read the meter, and then decide if they like the can. That simply doesn't happen, ever. |
|
Quoted:
OK, you didn't buy it you used it. Then why did you use a meter, post results, and continue to defend results if "nobody gives a flying fuck about what a meter says"? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I didn't buy a sound meter. Quoted:
No end users shoot their guns with a can in front of a meter, read the meter, and then decide if they like the can. That simply doesn't happen, ever. The meter shows a sound reduction, I already admitted that I made a mistake in not including the unsuppressed numbers. The fact remains that end users judge the performance of a can based on how they feel when they hear it. |
|
Looks like I missed a really good time.
Every time I think about buying a meter, I stop myself. There’s just too many nuances for me to always get it right. And it has to be right all the time or the data is garbage. |
|
Quoted:
The meter shows a sound reduction, I already admitted that I made a mistake in not including the unsuppressed numbers. The fact remains that end users judge the performance of a can based on how they feel when they hear it. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Every time I think about buying a meter, I stop myself. There’s just too many nuances for me to always get it right. And it has to be right all the time or the data is garbage. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
That and apparently "nobody gives a flying fuck about what a meter says". Well everybody I guess except 10mm_ who uses a meter, reports the results and then defends the results, he clearly "gives a fuck". View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time I think about buying a meter, I stop myself. There's just too many nuances for me to always get it right. And it has to be right all the time or the data is garbage. |
|
Quoted: This is not about chasing dBs. This is about making sure you are not buying a lemon. Sadly lots of MFGs are selling very loud cans. Using a meter that is not accurate will not help you. Especially when it under-reports. View Quote Let me modify the statement above to make it more clear so there's no possibility of confusion or misunderstanding: "This is not JUST about chasing dBs. This is about making sure you are not buying a lemon, WHICH IS ACCOMPLISHED WITH ACCURATE TESTING WITH A PROPER METER. Sadly lots of MFGs are selling very loud cans. Using a meter that is not accurate will not help you. Especially when it under-reports. THAT'S WHY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO USE A PROPER METER AND TESTING PROTOCOLS SO THAT WHEN DB NUMBERS ARE REPORTED THEY CAN BE TRUSTED." |
|
Quoted:
AAC agreed that numbers on paper don't mean shit View Quote Yeah, "numbers on paper don't mean shit", unless they are posting them. Apparently they were referring to your NUMBERS, when they said "don't mean shit", not theirs. Is that bitch slap they put on your face still red? again, since you keep ducking the question: Why did you use a meter, post results, and continue to defend results if "nobody gives a flying fuck about what a meter says"? |
|
Quoted:
Every time I think about buying a meter, I stop myself. There's just too many nuances for me to always get it right. And it has to be right all the time or the data is garbage. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.