Robert,

The Warlock seemed to perform significantly better than the other cans you tested.

So speaking subjectively, did the Warlock sound noticeably quieter than the other cans in the test to your (and anyone else present for that matter) ears?

Thanks

Not really. Not enough to pick it just based on the sound results.

Most of the cans sounded quiet including the Tac-Inv and the longer SRTs. Some had a more noticeable first-round pop.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that an increase of 3dB approximated twice the loudness of an impulse sound. Since the Warlock was 5+dB better than the other cans, you would think that it was head and shoulders quieter than anything other than maybe the Pilot.

What do you think accounts for the wide disparity in dB readings yet near non-discernable subjective differences?

I think it has to do with the duration of the output.

Which one of these sounds loudest?

140 dB for 10 micro seconds
137 dB for 20 micro seconds

The answer: Both probably sound the same.

Maybe the Tac-Inv has a 5 dB higher single-sample peak, but the rest of the sound energy does not last as long.

This is why I am working on new ways to report gun noise that factors in the area under the curve mapped over frequency bands. The spectrograms is an attempt to understand what is going on in more detail, but that is experimental. If we see enough of those graphs, we might figure out something new which will result in a new wave of can-development.

The truth is if a can is 2 dB from another, look for another reason to pick which one is best.

I tend to agree.

I test a Warlock and TAC-INC on Ruger Mark IIs last night (two guns, two cans alternating shots from each). And to my ears the Warlock was quieter, but not by a whole lot.

I think another reason that even though reported suppressor sound level may be several db apart yet they may sound "approximately" the same is that the human ear responds to sound in a logarithmic manner. Thus, even though the pressure (psi) doubles for a 6 db SPL change, the ear does not perceive a doubling of sound.

Also tone content (and the peak pressure for various frequencies and their duration) could affect the way the sound is perceived. Hearing loss can dramatically impact how we "hear" suppressed sound. I have seen this first hand when I shot with someone who had lost most of their high frequency hearing and their comments on the sound from some of my suppressors were very different than my perception.

I know I have some high frequency hearing loss, and I bet the average gun person has more than the average non-gun person.

Between the Sony Walkmans I had on my head with Iron Maiden and Slayer blaring when I was in high school, to shooting plenty o' times with no protection (because I didn't know -or care- any better), I've lost plenty of my innate hearing potential...

That being said, I can still easily hear the muzzle report of even the quietest of suppressed weapons, which is why it pisses me off whenever I read someone claiming that when shooting 'X' suppressor "all you hear is the firing pin strike and the bullet impact downrange"!

renegade wrote:I tend to agree.

I test a Warlock and TAC-INC on Ruger Mark IIs last night (two guns, two cans alternating shots from each). And to my ears the Warlock was quieter, but not by a whole lot.

So I forgot to mention the TAC65 has a thousand or more rounds through it, and the Warlock was brand new. This weekend I put a few hundred more rounds through the Warlock, and it is getting quieter and the gap is widening.