Regardless of what the paint has embedded in it, "30% reduction" of "transmission" and "reflection" is largely meaningless. Especially when they offer no test reports to back up the claim. (I couldn't find any on their site, anyway.) The data sheet states 30% "noise reduction" at 500 Hz. So what? If they literally mean "noise reduction" in the technical sense, that would equate to about a 1.5 dB reduction [10*log(0.7)], which is probably within measurement error and uncertainty for an NR test. In other words, it's a meaningless test result, if a test was actually performed.
If they aren't sticklers for acoustical nomenclature and they somehow measured a 500 Hz
absorption coefficient of 0.30 - and then erroneously reported this both as "noise reduction" and as a percentage, neither of which it would be - I would want to see some test results. I wouldn't rule it out as possible - thin finishes with (even tiny) trapped air pockets can have "high" absorption (relative to hard surfaces without air pockets). But I wouldn't believe it unless I was shown a test report. And even then, I would want ample documentation of how it was tested. (Most labs won't let you paint the test sample area.
And testing some substrate like gypsum wallboard before and after it's been painted could introduce uncertainties, to say the least.)
Finally, assuming the best possible outcome - that the paint actually does provide a 0.30 absorption coefficient at 500 Hz, and presumably comparable numbers at higher frequencies - it would be moot in the contexts of acoustical treatments for home theaters. At 500 Hz and above, the type of absorptive treatments that most HT applications require should have coefficients > 0.90. In the case of compromising for SAF, there are ample materials with mid-high frequency absorption coefficients in the range of 0.50-0.90 that are more modest in appearance than the übertrap-of-the-week. Ceiling tiles, heavy carpet, and heavy drapes, to name a few. And drapes are particulary good at hiding übertraps.
