Unknown suppressors OG testing

[thinhorn_AK]

Differing opinions based on evidence are excellent and often lead to better outcomes, but relying on subjective feelings or unproven beliefs as evidence is not adequate.

Nothing I’m saying is subjective, it’s a fact. The OG does buy you a bit of overall length. It’s also louder and heavier than some of its competitors.

Nothing about that statement is subjective.

 

[Formidilosus]

What do you mean “the same suppression” the example I’m using is my dead air nomad ti, in its factory form it adds 6.25” to the length of the rifle. The OG adds 5” to the length of the rifle. The nomad ti xc is quieter and lighter. And only 1.25” longer. For some people that might be worth it and that’s fine. I’d personally take a reaper over an OG.

The OG adds 4” exactly to the length of the rifle. It 4” in front of muzzle, and 4” behind. So 2.25” shorter. Again- over 30% shorter.

 

[omicron1792]

What do you mean “the same suppression” the example I’m using is my dead air nomad ti, in its factory form it adds 6.25” to the length of the rifle. The OG adds 5” to the length of the rifle. The nomad ti xc is quieter and lighter. And only 1.25” longer. For some people that might be worth it and that’s fine. I’d personally take a reaper over an OG.

The OG only adds 4” to rifle length.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

What? The OG adds 4” exactly to the length of the rifle. It 4” in front of muzzle, and 4” behind.

Ok fine, I still stand by what I said. If 2” is worth it to you then the OG is a great choice.

My point the whole time is that the only thing the OG does better than others is being shorter. That seems to come at the cost of weight and suppression.

Always a compromise, like the ultra 5, it’s light and short which comes at the expense of suppression, it’s also a gimmick.

 

[4th_point]

I will post all of the results from today in a full thread, however it will take me a couple of days.

Were you able to get the meter to measure A-weighting and Z-weighting simultaneously?

Z-weighting is going to be of more interest for the technical crowd. Just remember Z for Zero or unweighted. Or unmolested.

I don't see value in using A-weighting, unless a comparison is needed for legacy product/data. I know some still use it, which is fine as long as it's clearly stated as dB(A) but it can have an affect on the reported values (lower than Z, but never higher).

For reference, see how Z has minimal impact to the data compared to A, with C in between. The X-axis is log frequency. Y-axis is the weighting.

See how A whacks the levels down, below ~1000 Hz?

Noise geeks want the unmolested data, or unweighted with Z, if possible. Or the raw sound files which can be post processed with any weight applied.

 

[Formidilosus]

Were you able to get the meter to measure A-weighting and Z-weighting simultaneously?

Z-weighting is going to be of more interest for the technical crowd. Just remember Z for Zero or unweighted. Or unmolested.

I don't see value in using A-weighting, unless a comparison is needed for legacy product/data. I know some still use it, which is fine as long as it's clearly stated as dB(A) but it can have an affect on the reported values (lower than Z, but never higher).

For reference, see how Z has minimal impact to the data compared to A, with C in between. The X-axis is log frequency. Y-axis is the weighting.

See how A whacks the levels down, below ~1000 Hz?

Noise geeks want the unmolested data, or unweighted with Z, if possible. Or the raw sound files which can be post processed with any weight applied.

View attachment 934784

No I did not get both. And I am unlikely to. I’m not nerding out on this- it is simply a comparison to show side by side with each can. The eval for the cans is more than the sound meter.

 

[mtnbound]

Ok, this seems tough for you to understand. Try to follow along.

He got a sound reading from a silencer….ok. Then they added volume to the silencer and it got quieter. This would happen on any silencer, add volume, it will get quieter, take volume away, it gets louder.

I’ll say it again though, the gimmick is that that over the barrel design, isn’t quieter than a silencer of equal size, it’s not lighter than a can of equal size and it IS louder.

So, if you are willing to use a heavier, louder silencer so that you save an inch or so in overall rifle length, then the OG is a great choice.

I agree with you that an OTB is likely to be noisier than a muzzle forward can; they are two different designs. I suspect someone smarter than me will probably build one next week. My OG is the lightest can I have, and yes, it's 5+oz heavier than an AL, but I am not concerned about 5oz's. As far as noise levels, this is one area where everyone's individual hearing, along with the environmental factors, comes into play. For me, it's acceptable, and the videos seem to support what was advertised. I want the shortest hearing-safe suppressor, regardless of who makes it. If someone comes up with a 2"-3" can that's hearing safe, I would buy it, but for now the OG is the one that goes with me in the woods.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I agree with you that an OTB is likely to be noisier than a muzzle forward can; they are two different designs. I suspect someone smarter than me will probably build one next week. My OG is the lightest can I have, and yes, it's 5+oz heavier than an AL, but I am not concerned about 5oz's. As far as noise levels, this is one area where everyone's individual hearing, along with the environmental factors, comes into play. For me, it's acceptable, and the videos seem to support what was advertised. I want the shortest hearing-safe suppressor, regardless of who makes it. If someone comes up with a 2"-3" can that's hearing safe, I would buy it, but for now the OG is the one that goes with me in the woods.

I’m mostly just trying to figure what all the hype is about and if it’s something that would be worth it to me. Of the bunch of silencers I have, 2 of them are garbage (banish 30, scythe), I don’t want to buy something that I’d regret. The airlock seems impressive, so does the reaper.

When I go deer hunting down in southeast Alaska it’s thick as hell, but I havnt really had a problem with 18” barrels with 6-7” silencers, I don’t know how much of a difference of 2” would make. I can say for sure that when my rifle had a 22” barrel and I was using the banish 30 in the 9” configuration, that was straight up BS trying to get through the alders.

 

[mtnbound]

Were you able to get the meter to measure A-weighting and Z-weighting simultaneously?

Z-weighting is going to be of more interest for the technical crowd. Just remember Z for Zero or unweighted. Or unmolested.

I don't see value in using A-weighting, unless a comparison is needed for legacy product/data. I know some still use it, which is fine as long as it's clearly stated as dB(A) but it can have an affect on the reported values (lower than Z, but never higher).

For reference, see how Z has minimal impact to the data compared to A, with C in between. The X-axis is log frequency. Y-axis is the weighting.

See how A whacks the levels down, below ~1000 Hz?

Noise geeks want the unmolested data, or unweighted with Z, if possible. Or the raw sound files which can be post processed with any weight applied.

View attachment 934784

I think I need the Sound Measurement for the Dummies book, maybe then I will understand some part of this. No guarantee, though.

 

[mtnbound]

I’m mostly just trying to figure what all the hype is about and if it’s something that would be worth it to me. Of the bunch of silencers I have, 2 of them are garbage (banish 30, scythe), I don’t want to buy something that I’d regret. The airlock seems impressive, so does the reaper.

When I go deer hunting down in southeast Alaska it’s thick as hell, but I havnt really had a problem with 18” barrels with 6-7” silencers, I don’t know how much of a difference of 2” would make. I can say for sure that when my rifle had a 22” barrel and I was using the banish 30 in the 9” configuration, that was straight up BS trying to get through the alders.

I get it, I have similar buck brush to deal with, and I hate a barrel over 18". The AL is very interesting, and as fast as things keep getting better, I can only guess what's coming.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I get it, I have similar buck brush to deal with, and I hate a barrel over 18". The AL is very interesting, and as fast as things keep getting better, I can only guess what's coming.

Yup it’s amazing the things they are coming out with. I didn’t think it could get much better than the scythe when I first got it.

 

[nm.otter]

I

I think I need the Sound Measurement for the Dummies book, maybe then I will understand some part of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting does a pretty good job.

 

[4th_point]

I think I need the Sound Measurement for the Dummies book, maybe then I will understand some part of this. No guarantee, though.

It was a steep learning curve for me to understand noise! And I think for most people.

I saw my predecessor within a year or so after I took his job and he asked me, "Are you able to think in the frequency domain yet?"

He hit the nail on the head, as most people are used to thinking in the time domain and not frequencies. All of my previous test experience was in the time domain - force over time, displacement over time, etc.

That is probably where untrained people start making mistakes, as understanding frequencies helps us understand how humans actually perceive sound. And it gets even more complicated from there if you start taking measurements.

A-weighting filters what the microphone records in the real world to represent what humans perceive.

So if Formi or anyone else posts A-weighting, then you need to realize that the data was manipulated in a controlled fashion based on individual frequencies to match human hearing.

A-weighting attenuates what the microphone detected for frequencies that we are not good at hearing and slightly increases it where we hear well. Our hearing is great around the frequencies for human speech, for example. Makes sense, right?

The Z-weighting is unmolested. It's the sound pressure in the real world with no attenuation or manipulation of the data.

Humans don't hear well at lower frequency. See how the blue line for A drops off drastically from 1000 back towards zero? Since we don't hear well there, any sound is attenuated/reduced to represent our difficulty hearing those frequencies.

So a hypothetical can with most of its sound energy from 1 to 1000 Hz would have a lower reported noise than one with most of its energy from say 1000 to 2000, using the A filter. That could be misleading though, right?

With Z, you cut the bullshit and show what happened in the real world. No filtering, no attenuation.

So, A-weighting can be misleading if there's a lot of energy being attenuated as damage can still be done to systems even if we don't hear it so good!

Put another way, if Can1 had lower reported values than Can2 with A-weighting, the astute person would say, "What about Z-weighted values, as I don't care about the filtered values?"

 

[nm.otter]

most people are used to thinking in the time domain and not frequencies. All of my previous test experience was in the time domain - force over time, displacement over time, etc.

What really happens is the dynamic behavior of frequencies over time. This gets more complicated as that energy interacts with space and objects near the event.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

It was a steep learning curve for me to understand noise! And I think for most people.

I saw my predecessor within a year or so after I took his job and he asked me, "Are you able to think in the frequency domain yet?"

He hit the nail on the head, as most people are used to thinking in the time domain and not frequencies. All of my previous test experience was in the time domain - force over time, displacement over time, etc.

That is probably where untrained people start making mistakes, as understanding frequencies helps us understand how humans actually perceive sound. And it gets even more complicated from there if you start taking measurements.

A-weighting filters what the microphone records in the real world to represent what humans perceive.

So if Formi or anyone else posts A-weighting, then you need to realize that the data was manipulated in a controlled fashion based on individual frequencies to match human hearing.

A-weighting attenuates what the microphone detected for frequencies that we are not good at hearing and slightly increases it where we hear well. Our hearing is great around the frequencies for human speech, for example. Makes sense, right?

The Z-weighting is unmolested. It's the sound pressure in the real world with no attenuation or manipulation of the data.

Humans don't hear well at lower frequency. See how the blue line for A drops off drastically from 1000 back towards zero? Since we don't hear well there, any sound is attenuated/reduced to represent our difficulty hearing those frequencies.

So a hypothetical can with most of its sound energy from 1 to 1000 Hz would have a lower reported noise than one with most of its energy from say 1000 to 2000, using the A filter. That could be misleading though, right?

With Z, you cut the bullshit and show what happened in the real world. No filtering, no attenuation.

So, A-weighting can be misleading if there's a lot of energy being attenuated as damage can still be done to systems even if we don't hear it so good!

Put another way, if Can1 had lower reported values than Can2 with A-weighting, the astute person would say, "What about Z-weighted values, as I don't care about the filtered values?"

View attachment 934834

Explain to me, as a human, why I should care about the Z values? Does it affect my hearing, even if I can’t hear it?

 

[mtnbound]

It was a steep learning curve for me to understand noise! And I think for most people.

I saw my predecessor within a year or so after I took his job and he asked me, "Are you able to think in the frequency domain yet?"

He hit the nail on the head, as most people are used to thinking in the time domain and not frequencies. All of my previous test experience was in the time domain - force over time, displacement over time, etc.

That is probably where untrained people start making mistakes, as understanding frequencies helps us understand how humans actually perceive sound. And it gets even more complicated from there if you start taking measurements.

A-weighting filters what the microphone records in the real world to represent what humans perceive.

So if Formi or anyone else posts A-weighting, then you need to realize that the data was manipulated in a controlled fashion based on individual frequencies to match human hearing.

A-weighting attenuates what the microphone detected for frequencies that we are not good at hearing and slightly increases it where we hear well. Our hearing is great around the frequencies for human speech, for example. Makes sense, right?

The Z-weighting is unmolested. It's the sound pressure in the real world with no attenuation or manipulation of the data.

Humans don't hear well at lower frequency. See how the blue line for A drops off drastically from 1000 back towards zero? Since we don't hear well there, any sound is attenuated/reduced to represent our difficulty hearing those frequencies.

So a hypothetical can with most of its sound energy from 1 to 1000 Hz would have a lower reported noise than one with most of its energy from say 1000 to 2000, using the A filter. That could be misleading though, right?

With Z, you cut the bullshit and show what happened in the real world. No filtering, no attenuation.

So, A-weighting can be misleading if there's a lot of energy being attenuated as damage can still be done to systems even if we don't hear it so good!

Put another way, if Can1 had lower reported values than Can2 with A-weighting, the astute person would say, "What about Z-weighted values, as I don't care about the filtered values?"

View attachment 934834

Thanks for dumbing it down. That I can understand.

 

[4th_point]

What really happens is the dynamic behavior of frequencies over time. This gets more complicated as that energy interacts with space and objects near the event.

Not sure what you're getting at, Otter - seems like a tangent.

We can discuss airborne transmission and structure/fluid borne vibe, but that seems out of scope for this thread?

 

[nm.otter]

Time/energy/frequency behavior creates what we think of as 'tone' - especially in the free field window. TBAC alludes to this when they use the short-term response to 'eliminate' the walls in their building. It's more complicated than that, but a straight frequency plot dos not represent what our ears hear.

 

[RWT]

@MODS. Could we create a sub forum that is Supressors only? The Nerd Herd can complicate hammering a nail. I appreciate the detail, just not for every aspect of the suppressor industry.

A suppressor is the new “optic” drop test device up for debate. They deserve their own spot.

 

[Firth]

Explain to me, as a human, why I should care about the Z values? Does it affect my hearing, even if I can’t hear it?

Sounds outside of the frequencies humans can hear can definitely damage hearing.

I don't know anything about what frequencies are most damaging to hearing, but doubt they're all the same. My takeaway from @4th_point's post is that A weighting gives a number that should match with what we hear. E.g. if you ranked the loudness of five sounds from quietest to loudest it would be in the same order of increasing decibels given in dBa. The z-weighting might not rank in the same order because we are more sensitive to some frequencies than others. Whether the z-weighting it is better for determining hearing damage - I don't know. I believe it would depend on the actual frequencies and intensities. Hopefully someone who knows more will comment.