I'm well aware of the difference a brake makes on a rifle. While I could stand being beside my dad or cousin while he's shooting an unbraked 270 or 30-30, it gets quite uncomfortable to be anywhere except directly behind the gun when it's a braked 300 Weatherby or 375 H&H being fired. Considering how loud my unbraked Encore 243 is, I can't imagine how much worse the blast would be if it had a brake.

To those of you with muzzlebraked T/C's in rifle calibers, how bad is the blast, especially for the person pulling the trigger?

Is the noise increased? By all means.

Is it unbearable? Not if you wear hearing protection.

You should be wearing hearing protection all the time anyways.

I always do, even going so far as to take a pair of earmuffs along while hunting.

Not all brakes are created equal. With some it isn't as loud directly behind the gun as a few feet to the sides, and others are just obnoxious to the shooter. I prefer to avoid brakes if at all possible, but some chamberings require them.

I have two 223 Remington SP's that are not braked, but all of the rest have muzzle brakes. I wear double hearing protection when I practice and hearing protection when I hunt.
Personally, I like brakes for what they allow me to do.

A lot depends on how big the bore is and how much powder you are burning. The smaller bores seem to have a louder crack or high pitched sound . Bigger bores more boom. All are wicked from the sides. There are no quiet brakes so ear protection is mandatory. I always have a headache after a long session with my pistols braked or not, and I wear the best muffs I can find. Any high pressure cartridges like the .460, 454, or bottle neck rounds fired in a pistol barrel have a nasty crack to them.

Look at the muscle brakes. Little to no impact on the shooter from the report due to how they are made. I have two on strikers. One 6brx and on 7wsm

Interesting:

Muscle Brake

It's a good brake