T & K Suppressors Altus™ and Vorix™

[ckt3]

Sounds like you guys are doing it right. Pew Science is the gold standard for suppressor measurement quality and objectivity. Love to hear that you stand behind your products’ transparent evaluation in that way. Looking forward to reading the reports.

 

[alexnelon]

Yeah independent testing is pretty much mandatory to make any kind of statement about dB.

I can affect the reading on a 2255 by 10-15 dB either direction at will just through mic orientation. Not to even mention mic placement or introducing or moving physical objects around the area within or adjacent to the field of measurement.

I bet the cans are great regardless.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

This seems like a good thread to mention the Principle of Charity.

If there is a problem with the setup that results in the reported values being measured too low, that is probably something best resolved by independent testing or examination of the setup, not accusations of dishonesty. Given that T&K is paying for independent testing from Pew, I expect we will get accurate values that make sense before too long. And if there is something that can be done, in the meantime, to independently check their testing setup, I'm all in favor of it. But it's not like anyone "needs" to buy one of these suppressors right away, and I get a good feeling from T&K's posts that they are open to outside eyeballs looking at their setup, so I expect that any issues can be sorted out fairly easily.

 

[TandKHunting]

Yeah independent testing is pretty much mandatory to make any kind of statement about dB.

I can affect the reading on a 2255 by 10-15 dB either direction at will just through mic orientation. Not to even mention mic placement or introducing or moving physical objects around the area within or adjacent to the field of measurement.

I bet the cans are great regardless.

Independent testing absolutely adds value, and we welcome it. Mic orientation, placement, and environmental factors can influence impulse readings, which is why we follow defined mic positioning and conduct testing in open fields away from reflective surfaces.

Our approach is simple: use consistent placement, measure averaged LZpeak values, and report what the instrumentation records under those defined conditions. Variability can occur day to day due to atmospheric and environmental changes, but what ultimately matters is consistent high performance across properly controlled testing.

I completely understand the skepticism. There’s a lot of marketing in this industry, and not always a lot of methodology disclosed alongside the numbers. That’s exactly why we publish weighting, mic placement, host platform, ammunition, and averaged LZpeak values.

Healthy skepticism is fair — we just believe the answer to that is transparency and repeatable data, not hype.