onelesscharlie Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 We recently submitted one of our sound moderators for independent sound attenuation testing against other brands, the results are interesting and just go to show its pretty much down to individual preference. All the best onelesscharlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offroad Gary Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Would have been nice to have included "added length". Your unit performs well, well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 That pretty much confirms to me what my lug hole has been telling me for a long time Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 I can also vouch for Colin's creation Top notch and always stands behind his work No issues at all All I can say is THANK YOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris-NZ Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 As an audiologist, I find the absolute level of the results rather surprising. A .308 has a (peak hold) sound level of at least 160dBSPL at the shooter's ear. Even with 40dB of attenuation, that is still 120dBSPL, def not under 100. It is the peak that is the variable of interest. Was the test conducted with a true impulse SLM or just a std one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Good points ,Chris-but would the comparative aspects of the test still hold (ie there maybe not a large difference in subjective noise between most mods here-(not that that is really THE issue,compared to hearing protection.)? gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 As an audiologist, I find the absolute level of the results rather surprising. A .308 has a (peak hold) sound level of at least 160dBSPL at the shooter's ear. Even with 40dB of attenuation, that is still 120dBSPL, def not under 100. It is the peak that is the variable of interest. Was the test conducted with a true impulse SLM or just a std one? It's a good point. Quite a few people use ordinary industrial style noise meters to measure suppressor sound. They think that they have measured it correctly when they haven't. The impulse rise is too fast for this sort of meter. It requires specialist equipment to conduct these sort of tests. The best rifle suppressors reduce sound by about 33 dB(A), not 70! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris-NZ Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 George- the relativities would be fair IF the sound envelope was the same in all cases but you can't assume that's true. Only peak values really tell the story in terms of protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 George- the relativities would be fair IF the sound envelope was the same in all cases but you can't assume that's true. Only peak values really tell the story in terms of protection Thanks Chris- there does not seem to be much 'proper' testing of moderators readily available over here;which was why OLC's post was potentially so informative.Clearly good equipment is needed,as per Shuggy's post.Manufacturers don't publish comparative tests... All too often reviewers etc have to fall back on the "Mark 1 human ear",which is perhaps as variable as the 'Mark1 human brain'. (Professionally,can we expect a 'Mark 2' anytime soon,for either?!) george Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visiter1 Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 I love my olc mod , its just the thing I wanted for my 17 , great service too . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 Why do those numbers look so wrong ? I would think a rifle shoot was MORE than 125dB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 Why do those numbers look so wrong ? I would think a rifle shoot was MORE than 125dB See post #7. I'm not trying to be nasty, but if I was paying for tests, I would expect them to be done properly. There is loads of open source material that tells you how to do it right, based on Mil-Std 1474D or Def-Stan 00-27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunter87 Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 So has this test not Ben done correctly then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonl Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 So has this test not Ben done correctly then? Not the most scientific of tests. It doesn't state where the measurements were taken in relation to the shooter/barrel, and doesn't say what kit was used or how. Measuring impulse noise from guns needs gear with a very wide dynamic range and fast response. All that said, I'd say the comparisons are probably representative. The dB figures might not be precise, but dB's are meaningless to most people anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 This gives a good idea of the sorts of tools and techniques that are required to do it properly: http://www.sandv.com/downloads/0908rasm.pdf I'm willing to bet that these tests have been done with an ordinary industrial noise meter. These just don't have the required response time and bandwidth required to correctly measure impulse noise. In the press, Shooting Sports magazine and Gunmart have been particularly guilty of publishing moderator results using the wrong sort of equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onelesscharlie Posted September 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Why do I even bother...... I simply put up a post indicating some simple comparative readings, it doesn't mention that the tests were paid for or commissioned in any way. I even indicate that there is no outright super performer so it may be simply a matter of individual choice, my own mod is not even shown in a particularly good light and what do I get ...... crap. Well that about does it...................maybe time to stick to manufacturing packaging machinery and wind up the brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Please don't overreact. I'm really not trying to give you crap or be nasty, but some honest advice about the correct way to measure the performance of suppressors. I have some involvement with such things professionally and it's really very easy for people to mislead themselves by using the wrong equipment. Surely if you post comparative results, you can expect people to comment on them? For what it's worth, I think that your moderators are superb and easily the equal of anything else on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 OLC, I can understand your frustration: but see my first post on this-welcoming a comparative test,which is rare indeed. As you say,that test does not put your product necessarily at the top,so even more credit to you for posting it (there are other factos of course,like longeivity etc etc). But it's a bit harsh,to dismiss most of the comments rather ©rudely (I can understand your emotions,and disappointment,as self interest was clearly not your motive). The consensus of answers to my question is that the results as given are probably a good comparative guide,which is no more than you had intended. The comments on more detailed and 'accurate'-ie measures of the key issue(s) - still stand,and might well differ a bit,perhaps to the OLC advantage-who knows,until such tests are done Be that as it may,meanwhile,what you posted is still a useful comparative summary,and I don't think anyone would dispute that,and would commend you for this information.As I said,it at least adds to the 'Mark one ear' -or -'s opinion-kind of 'report' most -without any measuring equipment at all- can offer. (a 'crap' comment would be more like " I don't care what a hundred scientific tests show,I don't like the box it comes in ,and I didn't hear any sound reduction worth paying that much for." Your product,and indeed most of the others,do not attract such 'crap'. The comments posted are rather aimed at an even more revealing set of tests-I'm sure you can appreciate that some users would welcome these,though many are already quite /quiet happy with their mod-and OLC s are highly regarded,if not listened to! gbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onelesscharlie Posted September 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Shuggy & Gbal, frustrated hit it right on the spot, I am more than aware of the highly specialised and expensive equipment that is required to complete full and proper testing of this type. Believe me if I could justify the cost I would have it, however I can't so I don't, until such time I can only continue to supply my mods to magazines or the like that are willing to at least print something offering an insight and would hope other manufacturers would be prepared to do the same. My mods aren't the quietest, the lightest, the most visually pleasing or the most technically correct however they do what it says on the tin.. they moderated sound. For most that is enough, for those who require more scientific attenuation figures perhaps someone out there with acceptable equipment would offer their services for a good old fashioned comparison. I offer heartfelt appreciation for your positive comments however and can assure you that this gripe is mainly based on frustration and as with any forum you are more than welcome to offer you opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Colin That's why I stay quiet for the last few days ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baldie Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 You can have all the hi tec equipment in the world. It aint worth a toss. Figures and statistics can always be made to say what one wants. People will always line up half a dozen moderators and screw them onto the same gun, and test them that way. They will then buy what their ears tell them is the best. I,ve done it myself. Colins mods are quieter than any other mod I,ve tested them alongside, including a jet-z , to my hearing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visiter1 Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I agree .. its def the best mod i ve had and i have had a good few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.