Base 6 equal noise levels…
Longer life in exchange for more noise? These are also some of the agenda items we’ll cover in our comparison of the Arctic P14 CO fan with the fluid bearing variant. These are actually the main points. In any case, the ball bearings in the more expensive variant of these fans also have specific features that can be easily observed and distinguished even in normal, “home” use.
Base 6 equal noise levels…
There are several options by which to normalize the test modes for fans. In the previous chapter, we wrote that perhaps the least appropriate option is equal speed.
Settings according to the same static pressure or flow are for consideration, but we find it most sensible in the long term to normalize the measurement modes according to the same noise levels. Firstly because decibels are a logarithmic unit and all others scale linearly, but mainly because you can orientate fastest by the same noise levels. The easiest way to compare the efficiency of fans is just by how they perform at the same sound pressure level. Of all the options, this is the one that most people can best imagine and bounce off of when considering other variables.
The individual noise level modes are adjusted from low levels continuously to higher levels. All users will find their results in the tests, regardless of whether they prefer very quiet operation at the limit of audibility or whether high performance is paramount.
The quietest mode corresponds to 31 dBA, followed by 33 dBA, and for each additional mode we add 3 dBA, which always doubles the noise level (36, 39, 42 and 45 dBA). Finally, we measure the fans at maximum power. Here, each one already has a slightly different noise level, which we also report. If there are missing measurements between the results for any of the fans, this means that it was not possible to set the target noise level. Either because its minimum speed exceeds the quietest mode of 31 dBA or vice versa because the fan is quieter than 45 dBA at maximum power.
It is important to add that our noise level measurements are incomparable to the values quoted by the fan manufacturers in their specifications. One of the reasons is because we use a parabola-shaped collar around the sensor of the noise meter, which increases sensitivity. This is important in order to distinguish and set to the same noise level even modes at very low speeds, especially 31 dBA.
The noise meter next to the fan is quite close for sufficient resolution. The distance between the frame and the sensor is 15 centimeters. The sensor is positioned in such a way that there is no distortion or that the noise level measurements are not affected by airflow. Therefore, the noise meter is centered perpendicularly to the frame that defines the depth of the fan. Everything is always at the same angle and at the same distance. We use an inclinometer and markers to set the distances precisely and always the same.
We use a Reed R8080 noise meter to measure noise levels. This allows real-time averaging of samples, which is important for fine-tuning individual modes. We tune the fans until the specified noise level is reached to two decimal places, for example 31.50 dBA. The noise meter is the only instrument we calibrate inside our testlab. The other instruments have been calibrated by the relevant technical institutes. However, in the case of the noise meter, calibration is required before each test and we therefore have our own calibrator. This is already calibrated externally according to the standard.
- Contents
- Arctic P14 PWM PST CO in detail
- Overview of manufacturer specifications
- Basis of the methodology, the wind tunnel
- Mounting and vibration measurement
- Initial warm-up and speed recording
- Base 6 equal noise levels…
- ... and sound color (frequency characteristic)
- Measurement of static pressure…
- … and of airflow
- Everything changes with obstacles
- How we measure power draw and motor power
- Measuring the intensity (and power draw) of lighting
- Results: Speed
- Results: Airlow w/o obstacles
- Results: Airflow through a nylon filter
- Results: Airflow through a plastic filter
- Results: Airflow through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Airflow through a thinner radiator
- Results: Airflow through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure w/o obstacles
- Results: Static pressure through a nylon filter
- Results: Static pressure through a plastic filter
- Results: Static pressure through a hexagonal grille
- Results: Static pressure through a thinner radiator
- Results: Static pressure through a thicker radiator
- Results: Static pressure, efficiency depending on orientation
- Reality vs. specifications
- Results: Frequency response of sound w/o obstacles
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a dust filter
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a hexagonal grille
- Results: Frequency response of sound with a radiator
- Results: Vibration, in total (3D vector length)
- Results: Vibration, X-axis
- Results: Vibration, Y-axis
- Results: Vibration, Z-axis
- Results: Power draw (and motor power)
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, airflow
- Results: Cooling performance per watt, static pressure
- Airflow per euro
- Static pressure per euro
- Results: Lighting – LED luminance and power draw
- Results: LED to motor power draw ratio
- Evaluation
Expected results, but still an interesting showcase of the effect of only changing the bearings.
So, the “hum” is still here all the same, despite some claims that the CO version fixes it. ThermalLeft has documented sound differences between revisions too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt8Ao4GDmzY), but even Arctic themselves doesn’t think revisions will have such an effect. I am starting to think it’s possibly a batch “issue” that may have introduced different properties to the rotor material.
I guess those claims of the CO rumbling less will never come from an official source (from Arctic)? They don’t seem to list among the changes across the revisions the modifications that address this. And personally, I don’t even see the technical reason behind the CO variant or the higher P14 revision (2 vs. 4) being quieter on lower frequencies. The impeller seems to have the same parameters in terms of geometry or material used. Nevertheless, there can certainly be a situation where different noise levels are measured across different fans. But it may not be due to different revisions, and perhaps it may be possible to observe this across different fan pieces of the same revision due to different manufacturing tolerances (which are high in the low-end after all)?
An analysis that tracks the tonal peaks of multiple pieces from the same revisions on each side would shed more light on this. From our experience, we note that the shape of the spectrograms of multiple pieces of the P14 PWM PST rev. 4 compared to P14 PWM PST CO rev. 3 in the low frequency band is identical at the same speed. The small differences in the spectrograms that you see in the tests are mainly just due to the fact that in modes normalized by the same noise levels, the speeds of the two variants (P14 and P14 CO fans) are slightly different. For the CO, the speeds are always set a little lower due to the noisier bearings.
Perhaps what is known as “resonance” is something else that’s not the frequency spike at ~100 Hz. Namely, the sudden increase in noise at specific RPM ranges. Or, perhaps the two issues are lumped together when people talk about it, when in fact the two (sound profile with pronounced low frequency peak, and some RPM ranges being suddenly louder) are different issues (that perhaps are related).
I am sure you would have noticed and mentioned it though, when you’re testing the fans and adjusting the fan speeds again and again.