Suppressors New silencer sound standard?

[LeftyJason]

Saw this today.

PEW Science Announces Industry Leading Silencer Sound Standard - The Truth About Guns

PEW Science is announcing the launch of a groundbreaking methodology, the Silencer Sound Standard, a one-number way to rate suppressors.

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

My first impression is

@TBACRAY any thoughts?

 

[Zak Smith]

That's not a standard. It's an advertisement for a prescription service. Nobody else can calculate his "(TM)'d" values other than him. A standard describes the experimental procedure, equipment specification, and math to produce the output.

 

[LeftyJason]

Figured it was something silly like that.

 

[lash]

That's not a standard. It's an advertisement for a prescription service. Nobody else can calculate his "(TM)'d" values other than him. A standard describes the experimental procedure, equipment specification, and math to produce the output.

Exactly this.

 

[Crabcore]

that whole website is just an ad for this new standard. I fail to see how this helps consumers. It looks more like he is trying to get silencer manufacturers to pay him to rate their cans. Am I seeing this incorrectly?

this is what I see when I look at the site

step 1: create new silencer "standard"
step 2: ????
step 3: Profit!

 

[Gtscotty]

that whole website is just an ad for this new standard. I fail to see how this helps consumers. It looks more like he is trying to get silencer manufacturers to pay him to rate their cans. Am I seeing this incorrectly?

this is what I see when I look at the site

step 1: create new silencer "standard"
step 2: ????
step 3: Profit!

Nope, that's exactly how it looked to me. Pretty ballsy to come out and declare something you just made up a new industry standard, before you have any buy-in from the industry... Or anything that could be termed a "standard". I guess we'll see where it goes from here.

 

[Crabcore]

What I find so interesting about this, is that supposedly the decibel scale is too difficult for people to understand because it is non-linear. That is his claim anyway. But then the X axis of his chart is un-labeled and un-dimensioned? I fail to see how that is an improvement. It is supposed to represent "amount of shooting" I guess. They better produce some real data, real quick if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[Zak Smith]

It's also using test equipment that is something he just spec'd or put together. Which is what they had on silencer forum or silencer research or whatever like a decade ago. I am not saying that that makes it necessarily incorrect, but the reality is that you need a standard, certificed, calibrated system from an measurement manufacturer.

IMO, all we need to standardize sound testing at this time is a physical and procedural specifical for how to set up repeatable sound measurements using the BK PULSE. (That is on our to-do list but things got complicated recently.) It *is* possible to use one of them wrong and get bad data if your experimental procedure is shit.

 

[Lowlight]

Man people were determined to advertise this guy,

I removed his big post early in the week, so now we get the smaller one

Everybody is running here trying to slide in to advertise pretending they do understand the rules.

He wants to be an Influencer not much else,

 

[_Windrider_]

the only standard is what is set out in the mil spec guidelines.

 

[bigwatchpilot]

Oh my gosh...so does he have an instagram account or what ...Brenda?

 

[TriggerJerk!]

It's also using test equipment that is something he just spec'd or put together. Which is what they had on silencer forum or silencer research or whatever like a decade ago. I am not saying that that makes it necessarily incorrect, but the reality is that you need a standard, certificed, calibrated system from an measurement manufacturer.

IMO, all we need to standardize sound testing at this time is a physical and procedural specifical for how to set up repeatable sound measurements using the BK PULSE. (That is on our to-do list but things got complicated recently.) It *is* possible to use one of them wrong and get bad data if your experimental procedure is shit.

So not my are of research, and I am not an engineer, but why not just take the integral area under the three dimension surface using SI units. That would give you the total quantity of pressure measured from a recorded shot under standardized conditions (methological standardization of the placement of sensors, firearm, within a standardized acoustic environment). The specs for methodology, sensors, recording equipment, and analyses could then be set and shared. Seems like scientific research as usual to me. But a ‘proprietary standard’ is not a useful standard.

That said, I don’t know PEW. But there are many standards within all fields of science. Because some require specialized equipment, it is common to have the testing (sampling and analysis based on a standard method) offered as a service. But in each case, the standard methodology is known by all (i.e., customer and laboratory conducting the analysis).

 

[TriggerJerk!]

So not my are of research, and I am not an engineer, but why not just take the integral area under the three dimension surface using SI units. That would give you the total quantity of pressure measured from a recorded shot under standardized conditions (methological standardization of the placement of sensors, firearm, within a standardized acoustic environment). The specs for methodology, sensors, recording equipment, and analyses could then be set and shared. Seems like scientific research as usual to me. But a ‘proprietary standard’ is not a useful standard.

That said, I don’t know PEW. But there are many standards within all fields of science. Because some require specialized equipment, it is common to have the testing (sampling and analysis based on a standard method) offered as a service. But in each case, the standard methodology is known by all (i.e., customer and laboratory conducting the analysis).

In my field we typically collect the data, split the samples, and send them to competing laboratories for analyses. The samples are mixed with quality control standards (of unknown composition to the receiving labs) and calibration standards (known composition sample that are provided to the labs) for QA/QC. This keeps everyone honest, and provides results that can withstand scrutiny (whether there is a standardized method or not).

 

[RonA]

BS but at least it's properly named.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

BS but at least it's properly named.

How so?

 

[RonA]

How so?

Sorry, I was referring to the PEW Science subject, not your post.
RonA

 

[Zak Smith]

TriggerJerk!,

What you propose has the potential to be a (-nother) standard.

As it stands though, there *is* modern industry-standard hardware that is accurate and repeatable (BK PULSE), and there is a standard that, if careful, can be used for measurement (the mil-spec geometry). As anything, it is easily possible to screw up the experimental procedure and get junk data.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

Hi.

Very true, on all counts. The acoustic recorders that we use (environmental sampling) are rated at 97Khz, so an order of magnitude too low with respect to the PEW recording results.

But I found this discussion interesting, as I assumed a standard method of comparing suppressor efficacy existed.

 

[Zak Smith]

It does. It’s just easy to do wrong and people try to use the wrong equipment all the time.

 

[drew hopkinth]

Wow it looks like all of y’all should be eating your words @Zak Smith @lowlight

You can’t see a post on IG without people asking for Pew Science gather data on it. It’s a serious standard - and indicative of real life.

 

[TxWelder35]

Wow it looks like all of y’all should be eating your words @Zak Smith @lowlight

You can’t see a post on IG without people asking for Pew Science gather data on it. It’s a serious standard - and indicative of real life.

Not sure who you think those 2 guys are.

 

[Zak Smith]

Has the disposition of the topics in my first post changed?

 

[FuhQ]

Well, these posts sure aged well...

I don't follow PEW science, and I'm not paying someone to tell me how quiet a suppressor is when I can hear one in person and form my own conclusions. But I know who Jay is, and how big his following has become extremely rapidly. He's obviously doing something right for the industry to start getting behind him as fast as they did.

Just looking at it from an unbiased outside perspective.

 

[Clayman]

Well, these posts sure aged well...

I don't follow PEW science, and I'm not paying someone to tell me how quiet a suppressor is when I can hear one in person and form my own conclusions. But I know who Jay is, and how big his following has become extremely rapidly. He's obviously doing something right for the industry to start getting behind him as fast as they did.

Just looking at it from an unbiased outside perspective.

His reviews and ratings are literally free to you. There is only one number that isn't available free to the public and that is at ear db. Which by itself is meaningless. He gives you the at ear suppression rating. The membership is more supporting his efforts. Something I'm happy to do.

How many cans do you have access to test on the same host(s) out in the open on the same day back to back side by side without anyone else around shooting to accurately compare cans? Is there not a can that might interest you that you don't have access to? He is doing this for consumers. He doesn't sell suppressors or tell you what buy. He characterizes suppressors in a way nobody has before to give the consumers accurate information. Literally every consumer should support him, it's to their benefit. That's what he is doing right. He wants Innovation in the industry and better products for consumers and himself.

Some manufacturers and distributors are very upset about this because it exposes them. They want to control the narrative and numbers. They want to go back to whatever number they come up with in their tests and payed "reviews" by influncers. Just like when you see a new gun drop and there are 20+ influncers dropping videos the same day with nothing but glowing reviews. People will point out that he has paid services but he is using the same host, ammo and method. If he changes something it is noted. The only thing paying does is gets you your data asap vs just whenever he gets around to testing it. They can also choose not to release said data and Jay will not discuss clients data unless they say to release it. The majority of his tests weren't clients and were 100% funded by pewscience.

I'm sure you've been to gun shops and had them push certain stuff on you? You realize many of these companies offer fantastic benefits for selling their products right? This same thing happens with suppressors and their distributors.

By the way he tests to the current mil-std but at 1 million hertz per second and he shows you the entire waveform vs just a single peak db reading. You can see an AR bolt closing on his graphs.

The reason he isn't going to open source it is because companies will abuse it and go back to their old bullshit of rigging tests. Companies would intentionally use extremely overgassed AR's to get an artificially low db readings at the muzzle. Intentionally moving the muzzle slightly further forward than competitors, using hand loads for their can and dirty gassy shit for others, rifles specifically tuned for their suppressor or using identical looking rifles but one tuned horribly. I'm not saying all companies did this but it definitely happens.

Pewscience is for the consumer and is the future. If you can't hear it side by side in person with something you have experience with then no more trusting distributors and influncers getting kickbacks.

 

[Clayman]

Not sure who you think those 2 guys are.

He knows who they are.

 

[FuhQ]

His reviews and ratings are literally free to you. There is only one number that isn't available free to the public and that is at ear db. Which by itself is meaningless. He gives you the at ear suppression rating. The membership is more supporting his efforts. Something I'm happy to do.

How many cans do you have access to test on the same host(s) out in the open on the same day back to back side by side without anyone else around shooting to accurately compare cans? Is there not a can that might interest you that you don't have access to? He is doing this for consumers. He doesn't sell suppressors or tell you what buy. He characterizes suppressors in a way nobody has before to give the consumers accurate information. Literally every consumer should support him, it's to their benefit. That's what he is doing right. He wants Innovation in the industry and better products for consumers and himself.

Some manufacturers and distributors are very upset about this because it exposes them. They want to control the narrative and numbers. They want to go back to whatever number they come up with in their tests and payed "reviews" by influncers. Just like when you see a new gun drop and there are 20+ influncers dropping videos the same day with nothing but glowing reviews. People will point out that he has paid services but he is using the same host, ammo and method. If he changes something it is noted. The only thing paying does is gets you your data asap vs just whenever he gets around to testing it. They can also choose not to release said data and Jay will not discuss clients data unless they say to release it. The majority of his tests weren't clients and were 100% funded by pewscience.

I'm sure you've been to gun shops and had them push certain stuff on you? You realize many of these companies offer fantastic benefits for selling their products right? This same thing happens with suppressors and their distributors.

By the way he tests to the current mil-std but at 1 million hertz per second and he shows you the entire waveform vs just a single peak db reading. You can see an AR bolt closing on his graphs.

The reason he isn't going to open source it is because companies will abuse it and go back to their old bullshit of rigging tests. Companies would intentionally use extremely overgassed AR's to get an artificially low db readings at the muzzle. Intentionally moving the muzzle slightly further forward than competitors, using hand loads for their can and dirty gassy shit for others, rifles specifically tuned for their suppressor or using identical looking rifles but one tuned horribly. I'm not saying all companies did this but it definitely happens.

Pewscience is for the consumer and is the future. If you can't hear it side by side in person with something you have experience with then no more trusting distributors and influncers getting kickbacks.

 

[Clayman]

What part did you find funny?

 

[FuhQ]

What part did you find funny?

The massive full-page essay about PEW science. I’m not a dissenter, I think Jay is doing great things, It’s just funny that every time PEW science gets brought up there’s always a massive debate between the hardcore fanboys and the antis. I just found that aspect of it funny. It wasn’t meant to insult you or anyone else.

 

[sam4886]

That big ol' dissertation kind of reads like all the paid reviews it is complaining about. Ironic.

 

[Clayman]

The massive full-page essay about PEW science. I’m not a dissenter, I think Jay is doing great things, It’s just funny that every time PEW science gets brought up there’s always a massive debate between the hardcore fanboys and the antis. I just found that aspect of it funny. It wasn’t meant to insult you or anyone else.

It was about PEW and the industry itself. I was purposely broad for others to read as well.

Consumers should want this data. There's no reason for a consumer to not want this. If you ask Jay "how do I confirm your results?" His answer is shoot them side by side back to back. Most people don't have the ability to do this with a wide variety of suppressors.

Jay talked to me and answered every question I had a for months before I joined as a member. The data is 99% free(including the most important parts) but the fact that he spends so much time answering peoples questions without being a member was amazing to me. That is why I joined on top of the fact that his efforts will push companies to innovate and make better products. Most companies are using mostly decades old technology.

I also liked how much he emphasizes for consumers to build or buy good hosts. A suppressor is only as good as it's host in terms of suppression.

 

[Clayman]

That big ol' dissertation kind of reads like all the paid reviews it is complaining about. Ironic.

Ahaha yes because basically laying out that it is essentially worthless to be a member(other than supporting his efforts) as all the important information is free for everyone and that companies have and continue to lie definitely reads like I'm getting paid to say a pos product is good.

 

[E. Bryant]

Jay's podcast is a must-listen. Yes, he comes off as autistic and someone who may be a bit too fond of his own farts (boy howdy!), but he's also sharing incredibly detailed technical information on the construction, use, and validation of suppressors and host systems - and it's available for free.

His recent set of measurements on an unsuppressed MK18 host was particularly fascinating:

Unsuppressed Rifles; the 10.3-in MK18 as a Silencer Test Host — PEW Science

How does a short barrel rifle perform with a silencer? Can you use the same type of rifle silencer on an SBR as you would with a hunting rifle? This article compares sound signature from a 308 hunting rifle, a 300 BLK mini Fix, and a MK18 SBR. Is sound pressure the only thing that matters? Barrel

pewscience.com

That's some pretty cool shit.

 

[Jdfd556]

I am a fan of Jay's podcast and PEWScience, I think it's a great concept to "standardize" suppression ratings and boil it down to a single number. I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding sound ratings and the dB log scale is confusing for a lot of commercial consumers. I hope Jay succeeds and continues to put out awesome and free reviews for consumers to make more informed decisions that will also push suppressor companies to innovate further.

 

[LeftyJason]

Just thought of this video that came out recently in terms of sound loudness and frequency for cans.


@Zak Smith does the pulse system let you pull out the numbers of what the tone is? What are the ranges of tones that you have seen from different cans? Would it be good to plot the decibel number and the tone on an equal loudness contour?

 

[lash]

I honestly have little interest regarding what is the quietist can. I do however appreciate increasing technology and improvements in end product that push an industry forward.

 

[Hippy_Steve]

“Good data” is validated by both repeat sample and technical replicates. If a third party cannot replicate sample data with a technical replicate, then that’s bad data. This is basic science: trust but verify. Given how he presents his data as “scientific” yet fails to provide any way to validate it, he should not be taken seriously. As an actual STEM PhD scientist, it’s upsetting for me to see so many people fall for his game.

If you don’t follow, consider this: if someone posts a picture of a 3 shot group and simply states “this rifle shoots sub-MOA and I will not elaborate further,” would you be skeptical? You should be. You should be asking:
What was the distance shot?
Factory ammo or hand loads?
Why 3 shots and not 5?
Cold bore?
Repeat with multiple groups?
How were the distances between holes measured?
Can i use that same measurement tool and get the same data?
Shooter fired or mechanically fired off a tripod?
Did the rifle in question actually shoot that group?

PEW science isn’t elaborating on the picture of his 3 shot group he’s calling sub MOA, nor does he provide any technical information that would enable a third party to validate his 3 shot group. I don’t care how technical he sounds or how squiggly his sound graphs are. Real scientists consider obfuscation of methods grounds for immediate rejection of the data. Holy shit I would get filleted alive by my peers if I presented data at a conference and said “you gotta just trust me on this data bro. I can’t tell you how i got it, my livelihood is at stake!”

 

[doubloon]

Saw this today.

It's been around for years ... it's a proprietary and subjective rating.

 

[Clayman]

“Good data” is validated by both repeat sample and technical replicates. If a third party cannot replicate sample data with a technical replicate, then that’s bad data. This is basic science: trust but verify. Given how he presents his data as “scientific” yet fails to provide any way to validate it, he should not be taken seriously. As an actual STEM PhD scientist, it’s upsetting for me to see so many people fall for his game.

If you don’t follow, consider this: if someone posts a picture of a 3 shot group and simply states “this rifle shoots sub-MOA and I will not elaborate further,” would you be skeptical? You should be. You should be asking:
What was the distance shot?
Factory ammo or hand loads?
Why 3 shots and not 5?
Cold bore?
Repeat with multiple groups?
How were the distances between holes measured?
Can i use that same measurement tool and get the same data?
Shooter fired or mechanically fired off a tripod?
Did the rifle in question actually shoot that group?

PEW science isn’t elaborating on the picture of his 3 shot group he’s calling sub MOA, nor does he provide any technical information that would enable a third party to validate his 3 shot group. I don’t care how technical he sounds or how squiggly his sound graphs are. Real scientists consider obfuscation of methods grounds for immediate rejection of the data. Holy shit I would get filleted alive by my peers if I presented data at a conference and said “you gotta just trust me on this data bro. I can’t tell you how i got it, my livelihood is at stake!”

That's a mischaraterization as he lists a significant amount of info, most of it verifiable.

He tests to mil standard and uses a 1 MHz sample rate, with a stated standardized host and ammo. He posts the complete waveforms and peak db numbers. Both the waveforms and peak db can be validated by anyone with a pulse that is also testing to mil standard (nobody else is).

What he's not giving you is his scale and I don't blame him.

So you can trust the P.E. that has 16 years of relevant experience in the field or not (pewscience isnt his day job btw). He's still giving you the only complete waveforms and peak db data that meets mil standard testing protocols. I personally trust him for multiple reasons but the main 2 are that he doesn't make, design or sell silencers and his data lines up with my real world experience.

He's also shown us multiple things nobody else has. One of the biggest examples is the Surefire warcomp being a horrendous silencer mount that results in a shockwave at your face. Surefire afterward confirmed as much and stated the warcomp isn't meant for full time suppression. Nobody else told us this.

 

[AMGtuned]

That's a mischaraterization as he lists a significant amount of info, most of it verifiable.

He tests to mil standard and uses a 1 MHz sample rate, with a stated standardized host and ammo. He posts the complete waveforms and peak db numbers. Both the waveforms and peak db can be validated by anyone with a pulse that is also testing to mil standard (nobody else is).

What he's not giving you is his scale and I don't blame him.

So you can trust the P.E. that has 16 years of relevant experience in the field or not (pewscience isnt his day job btw). He's still giving you the only complete waveforms and peak db data that meets mil standard testing protocols. I personally trust him for multiple reasons but the main 2 are that he doesn't make, design or sell silencers and his data lines up with my real world experience.

He's also shown us multiple things nobody else has. One of the biggest examples is the Surefire warcomp being a horrendous silencer mount that results in a shockwave at your face. Surefire afterward confirmed as much and stated the warcomp isn't meant for full time suppression. Nobody else told us this.

@Clayman are you, by any chance, "your mama" on F1? I ask because your knowledge level, and posting style, kind of line up.

And, if that's the case; your opinions would be well validated.

 

[LeftyJason]

It's been around for years ... it's a proprietary and subjective rating.

That post is 3 years old... on the same day it was announced. March 26 2020.

 

[doubloon]

That post is 3 years old... on the same day it was announced. March 26 2020.

Yeah, somebody necro'd and resurrected it before me and I didn't pay attention to the original date.

FWIW the "motivational pics" thread has been around since 2012

 

[Clayman]

@Clayman are you, by any chance, "your mama" on F1? I ask because your knowledge level, and posting style, kind of line up.

And, if that's the case; your opinions would be well validated.

I am not. I lurked, followed people on Instagram and payed attention to a lot of the form 1 community, info on silencertalk, etc. I enjoyed the data and testing they and others did before pewscience came out.

I'm just a hobbyist that really enjoys and nerds out about some gun stuff, silencers a major part of that. I own 20+ cans (between in hand and pending) and that number will continue to grow. Likely 2 more in November. I have a couple industry friends and a couple friends with ffls. I've gotten to shoot/test/try and compare a lot of stuff on multiple hosts. Unfortunately not always on the same host or back to back. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I believe I have a greater understanding and experience set than many.

 

[AMGtuned]

I am not. I lurked, followed people on Instagram and payed attention to a lot of the form 1 community, info on silencertalk, etc. I enjoyed the data and testing they and others did before pewscience came out.

I'm just a hobbyist that really enjoys and nerds out about some gun stuff, silencers a major part of that. I own 20+ cans (between in hand and pending) and that number will continue to grow. Likely 2 more in November. I have a couple industry friends and a couple friends with ffls. I've gotten to shoot/test/try and compare a lot of stuff on multiple hosts. Unfortunately not always on the same host or back to back. I don't consider myself an expert by any means but I believe I have a greater understanding and experience set than many.

20 cans, multiple hosts; can't say it makes your opinion any less valid. That's a good data pool to pull from.

 

[kthomas]

People put way too much stock in PewScience. And arbitrary suppressor ratings and metrics. And way too much focus on dB numbers.

There's so much more to a suppressor than a dB number. I personally think the information PewScience provides is of pretty limited utility.

 

[carbonbased]

People put way too much stock in PewScience. And arbitrary suppressor ratings and metrics. And way too much focus on dB numbers.

There's so much more to a suppressor than a dB number. I personally think the information PewScience provides is of pretty limited utility.

This here gif sums up how I feel about the writing on © PEW Science® LLC‘s Pew SSS.6 - Sound Signature Reviews™ which are calculated using their SSS.2 - PEW-SOFT™ software methodology which informs their SSS.3 - Hearing Damage Level™ all of which are incorporated into their SSS.7 - Silencer Sound Standard™.


Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick how many days without autism?

 

[Hippy_Steve]

That's a mischaraterization as he lists a significant amount of info, most of it verifiable.

He tests to mil standard and uses a 1 MHz sample rate, with a stated standardized host and ammo. He posts the complete waveforms and peak db numbers. Both the waveforms and peak db can be validated by anyone with a pulse that is also testing to mil standard (nobody else is).

What he's not giving you is his scale and I don't blame him.

So you can trust the P.E. that has 16 years of relevant experience in the field or not (pewscience isnt his day job btw). He's still giving you the only complete waveforms and peak db data that meets mil standard testing protocols. I personally trust him for multiple reasons but the main 2 are that he doesn't make, design or sell silencers and his data lines up with my real world experience.

He's also shown us multiple things nobody else has. One of the biggest examples is the Surefire warcomp being a horrendous silencer mount that results in a shockwave at your face. Surefire afterward confirmed as much and stated the warcomp isn't meant for full time suppression. Nobody else told us this.

That’s a whole lot of word salad to say you’re a pay pig.

 

[BigPrince]

That’s a whole lot of word salad to say you’re a pay pig.

Well I wonder what your peers would think of that.

As a guy with only a masters and 20years of experience in engineering, the last person I would ask about rating a practical application of something is a phd.

 

[doubloon]

Obama has a J.D. degree, from Harvard I think, so I guess anything that drips out of his mouth is gold encrusted honey too.

 

[carbonbased]

Well I wonder what your peers would think of that.

As a guy with only a masters and 20years of experience in engineering, the last person I would ask about rating a practical application of something is a phd.

Well, to give @Hippy_Steve some credit, Pew Science/Jay isn’t exactly sailing the clear, sparkling high seas of ULTIMATE TRUST. Not saying he’s lying or does not know what he is doing, but he has dropped anchor in a murkier place.

Where, you ask?

I’d say it’s a mysterious, sometimes foggy place named, oh, say, The Lagoon of Unnamed Isle.

Also note that Jay has not set up shop by the Filthy Doubloon Saloon full of Scurvy Dogs near Pirate Cove.

I am just looking at incentives, disclosures, and potential conflicts of interest (plus other trustworthy signifiers), that’s all.

To illustrate my point, a very abbreviated scale of trustworthiness sort of goes like this, right?

A man…

BEST: Buys own stuff (shows proof), tests item with a taped, unedited public test with public data/methodology, shares everything, doesn’t seem biased against brands, compares items he’s tested against one another, discloses any potential conflicts of interest, discloses his successes and mistakes, no charge for his service
…

IN BETWEEN: Given stuff (viewer not sure if he keeps it), paid to review stuff by companies, shares a portion of his testing data/methodology but doesn’t share a video of the actual test, refuses to directly compare tested items, occasionally seems biased against certain companies, doesn’t always remind his audience of potential conflicts of interest, charges for some of his service
…

WORST: all the “in-between” problems but intensified to the max, a shill, promotes whatever he’s “testing” relentlessly and unfailingly, a walking advertisement but still pretends to “test” items & never dislikes/disses ANYTHING (unless irked or bribed)

This is not an all-encompassing list.

Pew Science is somewhere in the middle. Not saying he is doing everything that I wrote in the middle section! I am just illustrating a point.

I realize a man has to make a living. Certain ways of making a living reduce one’s trustworthiness.

Again, not saying he’s lying or a hack. How one determines how much to trust someone can lie outside of actual core job competence, sometimes. Think of the unconfident science genius, won’t meet your eye, can’t get anyone to invest in him.

 

[E. Bryant]

I live in the world of paid standards - SAE, ISO, UL, IEC, et al. I get that these things are an investment and often cannot be given away for free. But I can buy these standards for a nominal cost and replicate the tests contained within, which thus forms my minimum expectation for a standard.