Suppressor Testing??

[omicron1792]

You have no answer, but you’re telling me I have no idea what I am talking about here? Functionally tell me how 129dB is “safe”, but 131dB is “dangerous”- if you can’t, then you just agreed with what I wrote.





I don’t know what you believe you are educating me on here, but I am aware of how it works.




If I am getting damage from 132dB, I am getting damage from 130dB. You could not see the difference in those two.

It seems you are spun up about something and not reading what is actually being written.

As the doctor you will go to when you can’t hear, all I can say is you are wrong. And you sound very uneducated on this subject.

 

[omicron1792]

View attachment 1044197

Why do you think that chart goes in 3dB intervals

 

[Formidilosus]

As the doctor you will go to when you can’t hear, all I can say is you are wrong. And you sound very uneducated on this subject.

I get my hearing tested every 12 months, and have since 2002.

What can do you use, and with what cartridge and what barrel length do you use that you feel is “safe” or ok?

 

[omicron1792]

You have no answer, but you’re telling me I have no idea what I am talking about here? Functionally tell me how 129dB is “safe”, but 131dB is “dangerous”- if you can’t, then you just agreed with what I wrote.





I don’t know what you believe you are educating me on here, but I am aware of how it works.




If I am getting damage from 132dB, I am getting damage from 130dB. You could not see the difference in those two.

It seems you are spun up about something and not reading what is actually being written.

I am spun up and I don’t really know why. Thanks for calling me on that.

I’ve seen so may people come in with hearing loss. It’s a big deal. And it’s one area here I do have actual expertise. So I want to use that to make sure people know the risks.

Still I shouldn’t get spun up.

 

[omicron1792]

I get my hearing tested every 12 months, and have since 2002.

What can do you use, and with what cartridge and what barrel length do you use that you feel is “safe” or ok?

It’s relative risk for sure. It’s a sport you have to choose to accept some of that risk.

Nothing wrong with suppressors you use. I was just trying to point out that small amounts of increased sound can make a difference.

And in reality alot of people will use suppressors and no other form of protection. Thats just the truth of it.

 

[Bluefish]

View attachment 1044197

Im no doctor but I see this and think the interpretation is clear that less is better than more for our hearing

It’s called dose. Time and pressure level. Even the niosh chart you posted says 1 second at 127 db is safe. When a gunshot is roughly 3-5 milliseconds, even 1 second at that sound level is a lot of shots. Btw niosh goes with 140 as hearing safe for a single shot, 130 db is 10, 120 is 100. Now tell me how safe your single protector hearing protection is on a 170db rifle.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s relative risk for sure. It’s a sport you have to choose to accept some of that risk.

Nothing wrong with suppressors you use. I was just trying to point out that small amounts of increased sound can make a difference.

And in reality alot of people will use suppressors and no other form of protection. Thats just the truth of it.

None of that has anything to do with what I wrote in context.

What can do you use, and with what cartridge and what barrel length do you use- that you feel is “safe” or ok?

 

[4th_point]

The reality is that the common meters, while better than nothing- do not have the sample rate to give consistent real numbers. Some cans meter significantly lower than they actually are, and some meter louder than they are. Systems that are precise enough to give real numbers with all can designs are very expensive- far above what almost all companies can afford.

How are you getting some cans to meter louder than they should, when the equipment has insufficient sample rate?

That makes no sense.

 

[omicron1792]

None of that has anything to do with what I wrote in context.

What can do you use, and with what cartridge and what barrel length do you use- that you feel is “safe” or ok?

Everything I said was in reference to what you said. You were wrong on the 2-3dB not making a difference for your hearing. Then you asked another question to deflect from being wrong.

 

[1000yards]

And in reality alot of people will use suppressors and no other form of protection. Thats just the truth of it.

For sure people who know better need to be more vocal about that. I was one of those idiots who used to practice on a suppressed rifle without any other hearing protection. Then I came here and read through a good discussion between @Formidilosus and @Q_Sertorius that helped me see the light on that.

 

[4th_point]

Everything I said was in reference to what you said. You were wrong on the 2-3dB not making a difference for your hearing. Then you asked another question to deflect from being wrong.

A 3 dB increase is not insignificant. It would be twice the acoustic energy. But I suspect that you know that.

 

[Formidilosus]

Everything I said was in reference to what you said. You were wrong on the 2-3dB not making a difference for your hearing. Then you asked another question to deflect from being wrong.

No. You are being pedantic. What I said in context is that the difference between 130dB and 132dB is functionally useless. You won’t answer the question I am asking, because it directly shows that your big harrumph here is pedantry. It is functionally not useful to hand wring over the difference once the suppressors and gun is comfortably in the 130’s.

If you disagree with the last sentence- then say what can, what cartridge, and what barrel length that you use, that you find acceptable……. And I will show in simple terms why it is ridiculous to say that 2dB functionally changes anything.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

A 3 dB increase is not insignificant. It would be twice the acoustic energy. But I suspect that you know that.

Yes, that is the point he has been making in a couple of threads today. And he’s spot on. I’m really not sure why people are arguing with him about it.

 

[Bluefish]

Everything I said was in reference to what you said. You were wrong on the 2-3dB not making a difference for your hearing. Then you asked another question to deflect from being wrong.

It might or might not make a difference. Taking a single shot it won’t make a difference until you are close to 140 db. At 130, it will only matter if you are taking around 10 shots. Damage once you get below the threshold of instant damage is about dose, time and pressure level. Louder and fewer shots is the same as quieter and more shots.

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes, that is the point he has been making in a couple of threads today. And he’s spot on. I’m really not sure why people are arguing with him about it.

Because it’s functionally useless. 1db has more danger than 2dB of sound. So what? How is that useful?

If he or you wants to say that “yes, in absolute terms 2 db difference does in fact increase total risk; but once you are below a certain threshold- there’s not much you can do about it functionally”- great. That is actually what I have stated all day.

I’ll ask the same question to you- what can do you use, with what cartridge, and what barrel length do you find acceptable?

 

[omicron1792]

No. You are being pedantic. What I said in context is that the difference between 130dB and 132dB is functionally useless. You won’t answer the question I am asking, because it directly shows that your big harrumph here is pedantry. It is functionally not useful to hand wring over the difference once the suppressors and gun is comfortably in the 130’s.

If you disagree with the last sentence- then say what can, what cartridge, and what barrel length that you use, that you find acceptable……. And I will show in simple terms why it is ridiculous to say that 2dB functionally changes anything.

I’ve said plenty. I have no idea what the magic cutoff is. It’s different for everyone and depends on their risk tolerance, need for hearing, preexisting hearing loss, etc.

AND.

3db louder causes more damage. And always will.

 

[Bluefish]

I’ve said plenty. I have no idea what the magic cutoff is.

AND.

3db louder causes more damage. And always will.

So which is worse, one shot at 133db or 10 shots at 130 db, or 100 at 120?

 

[Formidilosus]

I’ve said plenty. I have no idea what the magic cutoff is. It’s different for everyone and depends on their risk tolerance, need for hearing, preexisting hearing loss, etc.

AND.

3db louder causes more damage. And always will.

I’m ignorant. How do I functionally use what you just wrote?


And why won’t you state which can you use?

 

[nm.otter]

3db louder causes more damage. And always will.

All other things being equal, sure.

Making time, energy, and frequency equal is effectively unachievable in the real world. Translation: We need better measurement metrics.

 

[Shortschaf]

So which is worse, one shot at 133db or 10 shots at 130 db, or 100 at 120?

If "intensity" is additive, and I in no way claim it is when it comes to hearing loss, these would be equal

5 shots at 133dB
10 shots at 130dB
100 shots of 120dB