New silencer sound standard?

lash

Swamp Rat
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Sep 28, 2012
5,820
5,360
219
61
Central Florida
That's not a standard. It's an advertisement for a prescription service. Nobody else can calculate his "(TM)'d" values other than him. A standard describes the experimental procedure, equipment specification, and math to produce the output.
Exactly this.
 

Crabcore

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Aug 2, 2019
133
121
49
Milwaukee, WI
that whole website is just an ad for this new standard. I fail to see how this helps consumers. It looks more like he is trying to get silencer manufacturers to pay him to rate their cans. Am I seeing this incorrectly?

this is what I see when I look at the site

step 1: create new silencer "standard"
step 2: ????
step 3: Profit!
 

Gtscotty

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2018
296
244
49
that whole website is just an ad for this new standard. I fail to see how this helps consumers. It looks more like he is trying to get silencer manufacturers to pay him to rate their cans. Am I seeing this incorrectly?

this is what I see when I look at the site

step 1: create new silencer "standard"
step 2: ????
step 3: Profit!
Nope, that's exactly how it looked to me. Pretty ballsy to come out and declare something you just made up a new industry standard, before you have any buy-in from the industry... Or anything that could be termed a "standard". I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
 
Last edited:

Crabcore

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Aug 2, 2019
133
121
49
Milwaukee, WI
What I find so interesting about this, is that supposedly the decibel scale is too difficult for people to understand because it is non-linear. That is his claim anyway. But then the X axis of his chart is un-labeled and un-dimensioned? I fail to see how that is an improvement. It is supposed to represent "amount of shooting" I guess. They better produce some real data, real quick if they want to be taken seriously.
 

Zak Smith

TBAC Guy
Commercial Supporter
Belligerents
Nov 7, 2003
2,508
956
219
Fort Collins, CO, USA
thunderbeastarms.com
It's also using test equipment that is something he just spec'd or put together. Which is what they had on silencer forum or silencer research or whatever like a decade ago. I am not saying that that makes it necessarily incorrect, but the reality is that you need a standard, certificed, calibrated system from an measurement manufacturer.

IMO, all we need to standardize sound testing at this time is a physical and procedural specifical for how to set up repeatable sound measurements using the BK PULSE. (That is on our to-do list but things got complicated recently.) It *is* possible to use one of them wrong and get bad data if your experimental procedure is shit.
 

TriggerJerk!

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 27, 2019
112
112
49
It's also using test equipment that is something he just spec'd or put together. Which is what they had on silencer forum or silencer research or whatever like a decade ago. I am not saying that that makes it necessarily incorrect, but the reality is that you need a standard, certificed, calibrated system from an measurement manufacturer.

IMO, all we need to standardize sound testing at this time is a physical and procedural specifical for how to set up repeatable sound measurements using the BK PULSE. (That is on our to-do list but things got complicated recently.) It *is* possible to use one of them wrong and get bad data if your experimental procedure is shit.
So not my are of research, and I am not an engineer, but why not just take the integral area under the three dimension surface using SI units. That would give you the total quantity of pressure measured from a recorded shot under standardized conditions (methological standardization of the placement of sensors, firearm, within a standardized acoustic environment). The specs for methodology, sensors, recording equipment, and analyses could then be set and shared. Seems like scientific research as usual to me. But a ‘proprietary standard’ is not a useful standard.

That said, I don’t know PEW. But there are many standards within all fields of science. Because some require specialized equipment, it is common to have the testing (sampling and analysis based on a standard method) offered as a service. But in each case, the standard methodology is known by all (i.e., customer and laboratory conducting the analysis).
 

TriggerJerk!

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 27, 2019
112
112
49
So not my are of research, and I am not an engineer, but why not just take the integral area under the three dimension surface using SI units. That would give you the total quantity of pressure measured from a recorded shot under standardized conditions (methological standardization of the placement of sensors, firearm, within a standardized acoustic environment). The specs for methodology, sensors, recording equipment, and analyses could then be set and shared. Seems like scientific research as usual to me. But a ‘proprietary standard’ is not a useful standard.

That said, I don’t know PEW. But there are many standards within all fields of science. Because some require specialized equipment, it is common to have the testing (sampling and analysis based on a standard method) offered as a service. But in each case, the standard methodology is known by all (i.e., customer and laboratory conducting the analysis).
In my field we typically collect the data, split the samples, and send them to competing laboratories for analyses. The samples are mixed with quality control standards (of unknown composition to the receiving labs) and calibration standards (known composition sample that are provided to the labs) for QA/QC. This keeps everyone honest, and provides results that can withstand scrutiny (whether there is a standardized method or not).
 
  • Like
Reactions: HansohnBrothers

Zak Smith

TBAC Guy
Commercial Supporter
Belligerents
Nov 7, 2003
2,508
956
219
Fort Collins, CO, USA
thunderbeastarms.com
TriggerJerk!,

What you propose has the potential to be a (-nother) standard.

As it stands though, there *is* modern industry-standard hardware that is accurate and repeatable (BK PULSE), and there is a standard that, if careful, can be used for measurement (the mil-spec geometry). As anything, it is easily possible to screw up the experimental procedure and get junk data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TriggerJerk!

TriggerJerk!

Sergeant of the Hide
Belligerents
Minuteman
Oct 27, 2019
112
112
49
Hi.

Very true, on all counts. The acoustic recorders that we use (environmental sampling) are rated at 97Khz, so an order of magnitude too low with respect to the PEW recording results.

But I found this discussion interesting, as I assumed a standard method of comparing suppressor efficacy existed.