Unknown suppressors OG testing

[Q_Sertorius]

Is the difference in tone with the OG enough to make up for how much quieter the Reaper is?
OG- 133 db
Reaper- 127 db

No, every three decibels is a doubling of the perceived sound.

Edit - The tone thing is probably highly subjective. I have heard some people describe various suppressor sounds as “nails on chalkboard.” The OG is not supposed to sound like that. I can’t hear a difference when shooting.

Sitting behind the rifle, with ear plugs in and headphones on, I cannot tell the difference between my AB Raptor 8 w/3” reflex on the 20” 6.5 CM, my Scythe Ti on the 18” 6.5 Grendel, and the OG on the 21” .270. I can tell I am firing different rifles, but not any meaningful difference in sounds. If I hear someone else shooting, I generally do notice whether they have a quieter or louder suppressor.

____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[IrkedCitizen]

To be fair, I don't think that is just an OG thing but I may be wrong. Thats a similar reaction to what i've witnessed across a number of different big game animals and surpressors with friends, family, and clients. Perhaps there is an argument that the "tone" of an OTB surpressor is less likely to spoke game than that of the tone from a non-OTB surpressor, but that feels like splitting hairs and impossible to objectively validate. I may be wrong but I personally wouldn't utilize that assumption as a meaningful input in my choice of a surpressor, certaintly not above absolute surpression or balance/weight attributes atleast.

What is a surpressor and surpression? You have made mention of these things several times in your posts

 

[Dan Carey]

The ammo used in these tests is of prime importance. As well as the sound measuring equipment.

 

[4th_point]

No, every three decibels is a doubling of the perceived sound.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

Q,

That's not quite correct.

A 10 dB(A) increase would be considered to be twice as loud by an observer (perceived). Our ears and brains are not as good as we may think.

For sound pressure, as measured by a device and not a human, a 6 dB(A) increase would be twice the pressure.

But, it gets weird! For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that two identical noise sources would be twice as loud if operating at the same time. Forget noise, decibels, etc. Just think about pressure. We live with a fluid surrounding us (gas). Sound is just waves, in the gas, creating pressure changes.

If we fire two identical rifles, same ammo, and same OG, at the same time, we would say that it would be a 3 dB(A) increase and not 6 dB(A) because they are unlikely to be 100% coherent. It gets confusing though, as it would still be perfectly reasonable to assume that two identical noise sources would be twice as loud. It's just that we'd say it would be 3 dB(A) and not 6 dB(A) due to incoherence. Of course, you could just take a reading to see what the combined effect would be.

Either way, when I'd run noise tests during product dev and present the results some people would say something like, "It's only 3 dB(A) louder". But decibels are log units, and +3 dB(A) is a huge difference in terms of actual pressure and not perceived loudness!

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Q,

That's not quite correct.

A 10 dB(A) increase would be considered to be twice as loud by an observer (perceived). Our ears and brains are not as good as we may think.

For sound pressure, as measured by a device and not a human, a 6 dB(A) increase would be twice the pressure.

But, it gets weird! For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that two identical noise sources would be twice as loud if operating at the same time. Forget noise, decibels, etc. Just think about pressure. We live with a fluid surrounding us (gas). Sound is just waves, in the gas, creating pressure changes.

If we fire two identical rifles, same ammo, and same OG, at the same time, we would say that it would be a 3 dB(A) increase and not 6 dB(A) because they are unlikely to be 100% coherent. It gets confusing though, as it would still be perfectly reasonable to assume that two identical noise sources would be twice as loud. It's just that we'd say it would be 3 dB(A) and not 6 dB(A) due to incoherence. Of course, you could just take a reading to see what the combined effect would be.

Either way, when I'd run noise tests during product dev and present the results some people would say something like, "It's only 3 dB(A) louder". But decibels are log units, and +3 dB(A) is a huge difference in terms of actual pressure and not perceived loudness!

Thanks, I misread what I looked up.

Edit - or my source was wrong?


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[nm.otter]

3dB is generally regarded as the threshold for reliable perception of a change in loudness. Spend a bit of time with an ABX comparator and you will be humbled.

 

[JGRaider]

Is the difference in tone with the OG enough to make up for how much quieter the Reaper is?
OG- 133 db
Reaper- 127 db

IMO, tone is a phrase you throw around to get people focused on that instead of lack of sound suppression.

 

[IrkedCitizen]

What is a surpressor and surpression? You have made mention of these things several times in your posts

@Timjohnson11 you laughed at my comment but this is a serious question? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously if you cannot correctly spell keywords for your arguments? You look like an imbecile.

Suppressor
Suppression

 

[Presswood_936]

IMO, tone is a phrase you throw around to get people focused on that instead of lack of sound suppression.

Bingo !

 

[4th_point]

Is the difference in tone with the OG enough to make up for how much quieter the Reaper is?
OG- 133 db
Reaper- 127 db

If those numbers are correct, that's a huge difference at 6 dB due to log units of decibels.

OG is 2x as loud in terms of measured sound pressure. As I posted above, it would need to be +10 dB to be "perceived" to be twice as loud since our ears and brain are not as good as a meter for detecting pressure change.

For humans to notice a change in sound, many consider +3 dB to be the smallest detectable. But, some with optimal hearing may detect +1 dB.

One thing to note is that Unknown listed A-weighting for the Reaper and no mention of weighting for the OG. A-weighting is used to represent the frequency response of the human ear, which is OK, but I'd rather see no weighting or at least consistency in the reporting. Unknown may benefit by cleaning things up a bit. And we still need to know what equipment was used - maybe I need to check the podcast.

In terms of tone, that's a rabbit hole. And actually "tone" is not technically the way that I would describe the claim. A tone is a single frequency, and it is unlikely that the spectra (data in freq domain) is centered around a single frequency. In prod dev, we'd call it "tonal quality" or "sound quality". Yeah, it's nitpicking but it's these sorts of things that make people raise eyebrows and question the technical ability of those reporting the results on the website.

I worked as a noise engineer for a bit, but I am not an expert in sound quality - it's a slippery slope, as it involves psychoacoustics. I think I posted about it before, but it is a highly specialized field in acoustics. There are special (expensive!) sound quality packages available to post-process noise data based on how the brain interprets what it gets from the ears.

Anyway, I was just a Test Guy in acoustics, but was involved with some sound quality studies. The studies were led by a licensed Chief w/advanced degree in Acoustics as the analyst. Just when we thought we'd get widespread agreement from the test subjects, it fell apart. It fell apart because of a robust test plan. If we just made some measurements under a few conditions, we might have made bad conclusions.

All that to say, it is extremely common to hear people make all sorts of claims about noises, tones, etc. that don't make sense to a noise engineer. People hear something then make some bold claim not realizing individual differences or limitations.

For example, early on there were claims that the tones from the OG were less disruptive to big game. That may be true, however that assumes that the frequency response of deer, elk, pronghorn, etc. are the same as the human ear. We know that's not the case, they have different frequency response and a noise engineer would be cautious to assume that what he/she heard was the same as what an animal perceived. I haven't seen or heard that claim in awhile, so maybe it's not being used as a selling point now. And to prove it, would require a robust test plan which would be daunting and probably worthy of PhD dissertation!

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If those numbers are correct, that's a huge difference at 6 dB due to log units of decibels.

OG is 2x as loud in terms of measured sound pressure. As I posted above, it would need to be +10 dB to be "perceived" to be twice as loud since our ears and brain are not as good as a meter for detecting pressure change.

For humans to notice a change in sound, many consider +3 dB to be the smallest detectable. But, some with optimal hearing may detect +1 dB.

One thing to note is that Unknown listed A-weighting for the Reaper and no mention of weighting for the OG. A-weighting is used to represent the frequency response of the human ear, which is OK, but I'd rather see no weighting or at least consistency in the reporting. Unknown may benefit by cleaning things up a bit. And we still need to know what equipment was used - maybe I need to check the podcast.

In terms of tone, that's a rabbit hole. And actually "tone" is not technically the way that I would describe the claim. A tone is a single frequency, and it is unlikely that the spectra (data in freq domain) is centered around a single frequency. In prod dev, we'd call it "tonal quality" or "sound quality". Yeah, it's nitpicking but it's these sorts of things that make people raise eyebrows and question the technical ability of those reporting the results on the website.

I worked as a noise engineer for a bit, but I am not an expert in sound quality - it's a slippery slope, as it involves psychoacoustics. I think I posted about it before, but it is a highly specialized field in acoustics. There are special (expensive!) sound quality packages available to post-process noise data based on how the brain interprets what it gets from the ears.

Anyway, I was just a Test Guy in acoustics, but was involved with some sound quality studies. The studies were led by a licensed Chief w/advanced degree in Acoustics as the analyst. Just when we thought we'd get widespread agreement from the test subjects, it fell apart. It fell apart because of a robust test plan. If we just made some measurements under a few conditions, we might have made bad conclusions.

All that to say, it is extremely common to hear people make all sorts of claims about noises, tones, etc. that don't make sense to a noise engineer. People hear something then make some bold claim not realizing individual differences or limitations.

For example, early on there were claims that the tones from the OG were less disruptive to big game. That may be true, however that assumes that the frequency response of deer, elk, pronghorn, etc. are the same as the human ear. We know that's not the case, they have different frequency response and a noise engineer would be cautious to assume that what he/she heard was the same as what an animal perceived. I haven't seen or heard that claim in awhile, so maybe it's not being used as a selling point now. And to prove it, would require a robust test plan which would be daunting and probably worthy of PhD dissertation!

View attachment 934134View attachment 934140

Somewhere in one of these enormous threads, there is a clarification from someone at US/UM confirming that the OG's sound rating is 132-133 SE dBA and that the ammunition used was the standard L118 .308. I'm not personally worried about the rating they list - I believe it to be accurate. As I understand it, they tried their best to replicate the TBAC silencer summit setups.

I agree that there are many companies - not just US/UM - that could be more precise on their websites about the units they are using and the equipment used to reach their numbers. The new SAAMI standards should help address that a bit, as should the eventual participation of more new companies (such as US/UM and Airlock) in the TBAC Summit.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I have an OG and the “tone” they are talking about is BS

There is a noticeable difference in tone compared to several other of my suppressors and other suppressors I’ve shot.

It’s particularly noticeable in the mountains/canyons I shoot it nearly daily at range.

Shooting in the same spot over and over again on a “range day” I suppose I can’t comment on that yet as that’s not how I shoot.

 

[4th_point]

The new SAAMI standards should help address that a bit, as should the eventual participation of more new companies (such as US/UM and Airlock) in the TBAC Summit.

Agreed - adherence to the new SAAMI standard just released would add rigor to these tests. The 192k sample rate and post-processing would probably prove challenging for smaller shops to do in-house though.

The TBAC Summit would not count under the current requirements. IIRC, they have suitable equipment though.

 

[Presswood_936]

There is a noticeable difference in tone compared to several other of my suppressors and other suppressors I’ve shot.

It’s particularly noticeable in the mountains/canyons I shoot it nearly daily at range.

Shooting in the same spot over and over again on a “range day” I suppose I can’t comment on that yet as that’s not how I shoot.

The tone you hear is a “boom” , that’s because it’s loud .

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

Tone is 100% a thing...

My ex wifes voice... that tone. See? It's a thing.

That's like a free throw with a baseball bat from the 20 yard line.

 

[mtnbound]

To be fair, I don't think that is just an OG thing but I may be wrong. Thats a similar reaction to what i've witnessed across a number of different big game animals and surpressors with friends, family, and clients. Perhaps there is an argument that the "tone" of an OTB surpressor is less likely to spoke game than that of the tone from a non-OTB surpressor, but that feels like splitting hairs and impossible to objectively validate. I may be wrong but I personally wouldn't utilize that assumption as a meaningful input in my choice of a surpressor, certaintly not above absolute surpression or balance/weight attributes atleast.

As someone who has been using suppressors for over 20 years, I agree that an animal's reaction to a suppressed round is one of reduced panic or shock, or whatever you want to call it. I have had them even come to the shot, which is weird.

To me, the OG sounds fine, but some have said it's the loudest they have ever heard, so I had an opportunity to test it in a real-world environment where it matters most. If the bear had bolted because it recognized that noise as a rifle shot, then I would have stated that, but it didn't.

For me, the 4" behind the muzzle helps with balance, but what I really like is having only 4" past the muzzle. Yes, the OG is 5 oz heavier than the AL, It's still lighter than a lot of my previous cans, and I'm not worried about 5 oz because I can't feel it.

It's clear that you don't like the OG and want everyone to agree with you, but I've included my observations in this post. If my opinion matched yours, I would get a "Thumbs up" from you. However, since I disagree with you, you want to refute my observations and any positive feedback about the OG.

 

[Dan Carey]

Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I have heard a certain sound that might be a tone or maybe a ping from the tube material that sounds different between some suppressors. best heard when standing directly behind the shooter. I don't know what it is, sounds like a ping to me.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I have heard a certain sound that might be a tone or maybe a ping from the tube material that sounds different between some suppressors. best heard when standing directly behind the shooter. I don't know what it is, sounds like a ping to me.

Yes, that is how I have heard it described, as a “high-pitched ting!” For some people, it is like “nails on a chalkboard.” I’ve never had a problem with that particular sound or noticed it. But, I am betting that people who spend a lot of time around other people shooting suppressors - and who don’t like it - can pick it out immediately.

As I said above, when I am shooting, I appreciate the lack of noise and blast compared with an unsuppressed shot. But the only time I really hear the sound is when I watch/listen to someone else shoot. I was really impressed with my AB Raptor 8 w/ 3” reflex when I let someone else shoot it last time I was at the range.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Timjohnson11]

As someone who has been using suppressors for over 20 years, I agree that an animal's reaction to a suppressed round is one of reduced panic or shock, or whatever you want to call it. I have had them even come to the shot, which is weird.

To me, the OG sounds fine, but some have said it's the loudest they have ever heard, so I had an opportunity to test it in a real-world environment where it matters most. If the bear had bolted because it recognized that noise as a rifle shot, then I would have stated that, but it didn't.

For me, the 4" behind the muzzle helps with balance, but what I really like is having only 4" past the muzzle. Yes, the OG is 5 oz heavier than the AL, It's still lighter than a lot of my previous cans, and I'm not worried about 5 oz because I can't feel it.

It's clear that you don't like the OG and want everyone to agree with you, but I've included my observations in this post. If my opinion matched yours, I would get a "Thumbs up" from you. However, since I disagree with you, you want to refute my observations and any positive feedback about the OG.

Haha I've never said I didn't like the OG, nor was the catalyst behind my response to take a take a dig at the OG, I was simply sharing my observation that the reaction you shared seems to be more conducive to running a can in general versus the specfic type of can. I didn't say you were right or wrong, or that the OG was a good or a bad can, I simply provided by thoughts (based on experience) that I think the scenario you were referencing is more of a function of cans in general, not a specific can itself.

If you read any of my comments on here, I've never said the OG is a bad or a good can, or whether I like or dislike it. I've noted that UM themselves markets the OG 6.5 as perfroming "way better" than the OG but have shared no personal opinions on the overall quality of the can. I'd have interest in the OG if I was in the market for a new can but it wouldn't be my front runner (OG 6.5 would be).

 

[Formidilosus]

Sorry to get off track slightly...

Has Unknown Suppressors ever listed the equipment used to measure noise levels? I don't see it on the company website. And don't recall seeing it in the forum, but might have missed it.

With all the discussion regarding perceived loudness vs reported values, I am just curious how the measurements were taken.

Thanks

They are using Larson Davis Spartan M821. It is the same that I just got.