Hej!
Skrev detta i en liknande tråd:
Seagaten har för sig massa skumma ljud i idle, typ kalibreringsljud. Och om man kollar SilentPCReviews' forum ser man ganska klart att de flesta rekommenderar Samsung P80 före Seagate 7200.7
Imo finns det bara två HDD val idag (normala pata/sata diskar), Hitachi 7k250 om man är ute efter den snabbaste, eller Samsung P80 om man vill ha det tystaste.
Deras test:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article82-page1.html
Citat:
Samsung SP1604N: The Samsung turned in a very credible performance as the noise runner-up. While exhibiting slightly higher noise overall, its high frequency whine noise seemed even lower than that of the Barracuda IV, although this could not be clearly confirmed. It was when the Barracuda IV was turned off, and then the Samsung turned on that one sometimes got the sense of a slight absence of high frequency noise. But when listened to it by itself, the whine could only be heard at trace levels from the 'cuda at distances under 6 inches.
The seek noise of the Samsung was vanishingly low, and their claim of a mere 0.2 Bel rise from idle seems justified. This lack of dynamic noise activity means that while the Barracuda IV has slightly lower overall noise, it may be easiest for the Samsung drive to become psychoacoustically transparent, for its noise to fade into the background for most people.
...
The Samsung SP1604N, whose arrival instigated this roundup review, turns out to be a most pleasant surprise, coming within a hair of the Barracuda IV for noise and falling in between the Hitachi and Seagate for performance. The slow seek times seemed anomalous but were consistent. In actual use, I often found the Samsung to be slightly less obtrusive than the Barracuda IV because its seek noise was so low.
Notera att Barracuda IV är den tystaste disken någonsin (!?), inte jämförbar med den mer oljudande 7200.7. Speciellt inte S-ATA varianten som är inställd på ett snabbt-läge, medan P-ATA versionen är fast i det slöa läget som är tystare.
Ja men Storage Review då!?
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=9492
There are major differences between SR's and SPCR's approaches to HDD noise:
1. We LISTEN carefully, over long term, and with varied conditions. They don't, not really, not enough, not carefully enough.
2. They measure with the mic virtually touching the drive. This is NOT an accurate way to measure the noise of anything. They mention "nearfield" mic technique, but this is not nearfield microphone technique. Typically, you really can't get the mic any closer than maybe a foot (some would say half a meter) because proximity effects (especially in the lower freq) swamp the direct sound. Real nearfield microphone technique requires that the proximity effects are calculated using scientific forumulae and the final SPL reading adjusted. There is no way to do this with mic readings from 18 millimeters distance, and there is no attempt at SR to do this.
AFAI can tell, the only real meaning of the term nearfiled for SR is that they put the mic real close so their SLM can take a reading. The truth is that if you go back half a meter, most quiet HDDs will have readings in the low 20s (dBA), and this may be lower than what their SLM can read.
3. There is NO assessment of the frequency balance of the noise. IE, how much of the noise is irritating high freq? Or the reset hiccup noise from IBM/Hitachi, or...
In summary, I would put my faith in the hands-on subjective comparisons of experienced (and/or perceptive) SPCR members, and of the reviews we have posted, over SR reviews when it comes to assessments of HDD noise. Their noise mesurement technique is way too flawed to be reliable, they don't do enough subjective listening, and they don't consider the seek noise or the contrast between idle & seek.
Skrivet av Mike på SPCR.
Lite trådar där annars:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=10099
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=10113
Mvh.
