![Discussion Forums](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference is that TBAC uses a very open and repeatable test method. I can reproduce their results with my equipment. Griffin is using their own methods in mic placement and how they process the signal. Their method is frankly, questionable, now that I see more of how they're testing. When Pew Science advertises that you can't trust manufacturers, this is the fodder. It makes us all look bad and it's a frustrating headwind for those of us that want to release trustworthy data. ETA: I see GA just posted a high level description of their process. I won't get into specifics, but my statement still holds true. The generic description above doesn't explain enough to change my mind.
View Quote
I guess I missed this comment that was totally false and completely misleading in the fray of the personal attacks and garbage of this old thread. I published the entire equipment list on every video. I started this series with a video Jan 6, 2020 demonstrating the testing equipment and setup. This whole testing method is repeatable and could be recreated by a person with a Pulse meter at another site. It's not fodder. It's not misleading. Two B&K technicians, one of them a application level scientist, spent about 6 weeks developing this testing method for us. They visited us about 5 times in the process, and were pulling from experience setting up other sound suppressor companies in the USA. I believe some of the support they needed came from Europe. I didn't set up this method myself.
The only thing that was custom was the ability of the software to export the data in real time to excel for R&D and these videos, fully automated, without misc manual button presses, because we knew how important the transparency was going to be for the community. I personally find it questionable for numbers to be entered in video post-processing like premier pro, and that's all the other testing in the industry- you are made to believe something that might not have even happened whenever people show you re-typed information, without evidence it came from metrology. That piece challenged B&K and that was why the settup took so long. We are obviously a maintenance customer of HBK and our software and hardware are fully up to date, and fully supported.
We wanted to recreate what Silencer Co shows with their lower sampling speed labview system. So that demonstrates we didn't even change the testing process with regard to that- this type of system had already been in use in the industry, and we were just duplicating that type of display of data on the Bruel & Kjaer side of the house where the analyzer product is higher quality with faster sampling speed 262KHZ.
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rnmSBnIip3c/mqdefault.jpg)
Introduction to Sound Testing - B&K PULSE System