Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Air Cooling › Question about eLoop's on a fan controller
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Question about eLoop's on a fan controller - Page 2

post #11 of 17
Cubic meter per hour is a 'fixed' volume moved during a 'fixed period of time, so indeed it is a 'fixed' standard. The fact some fan companies do not use this 'fixed' measurement method accurately does not make it any less 'fixed'.

Sorry, but your sound recordings do not sound at all like the actual fans do. I have several of the same fans and have listened to both side by side. Fans I have compared are TY-147A, TY-14013, PH-F140HP, PH-F140MP, PH-F140SP, XF140 and original brown model of NO-14025 The actual fans do not sound anything like your recordings.
post #12 of 17
Still, I am not talking about the reference of the unit itself!
I am talking about the varying testing methods manufacturers use that are not being shared with the public and can lead to totally different results. That does not allow you to compare different products from different companies whilst my results are being established on a consistent basis at least and shared with the community. Thats the point, whilst the unit itself just indicates what you are measuring but not how you are doing so.

Finally, if you are questioning the scale of my results you should at least question - to be fear - all the others, too.
That does count for sound recordings respectively measurements of acoustic pressure, as well.

Regarding the sound recordings... I see no sense for further discussions here. It just does not lead to any conclusion.
I guess we shared our basic thoughts via PM already wink.gif
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove View Post

Thanks for the reference thumb.gif

The results in m³/h are not fixed to any common standard such as most of the manufacturer values are (resp. they do not use the same setups so there is basically no sense in comparing those specs in general).

You should also have a look at the sound recordings (which can give you a rough glimpse of what the fans could sound like under certain contitions) because also the readings of the RPM (U/min) vary from fan to fan.
https://soundcloud.com/user-514251562/sets/140mm-fan-roundup-2016

Uh...your recordings are all in mono. Which is valid since you're only recording one fan - one sound source - one mono signal.

Except that mono recordings played back give no sense of space or acoustic context. The result is useful if the 'certain conditions' involves putting one ear inside the fan. A mono signal with the excessively close mic technique, results is a very distorted perspective and skewed frequency spectrum that does not correlate to the sonic character of a fan in a case at a distance of .5-1M.

And sorry to say, but your Ambient Level/Calibration recording is so noisy that I don't really want to hear more fan noise on top of it.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove View Post

Still, I am not talking about the reference of the unit itself!
I am talking about the varying testing methods manufacturers use that are not being shared with the public and can lead to totally different results. That does not allow you to compare different products from different companies whilst my results are being established on a consistent basis at least and shared with the community. Thats the point, whilst the unit itself just indicates what you are measuring but not how you are doing so.

Finally, if you are questioning the scale of my results you should at least question - to be fear - all the others, too.
That does count for sound recordings respectively measurements of acoustic pressure, as well.

Regarding the sound recordings... I see no sense for further discussions here. It just does not lead to any conclusion.
I guess we shared our basic thoughts via PM already wink.gif
You are misunderstanding my post. I do not question your integrity, and your airflow numbers seem to give a good representation of how the different fans perform (I say' seem' because I have not studied them enough to say definitively).

But what you posted "results in m³/h are not fixed to any common standard" says m³/h is not a common standard. m³/h is a standard. It's the testing procedures that are not consistent.

While the results do vary depending on who tests, the reputable companies get result that are similar.

Your m²/h readings are not similar, but are much higher than reputable company test results. While your test system is similar in design I think it is more restrictive with less cross-sectional area in chambers and air straightener. You also do not have the pressure differential controls found on more sophisticated test system. These differences should result in lower airflow readings, not significantly higher readings.

All this does not mean your flow measurement are not accurate representations of performance differences between fans.

But you are misrepresenting the meaning of m³/h by using it as the unit of measure for your readings. I would simply remove m³/h from all data. The numbers speak for themselves, but they in no way represent m³/h'

As for your sound clips, they may well represent what the fans sound like inside of a box like your recorded them in. But the problem is they do not sound like the same fans setting on a foam pad 10cm or a meter away from me .. or like they would if running in a case 10cm or a meter away. None of us are using our fans in a sound box and as such I believe your sound clips have no functional use to us.

Simply put, sound clips made in an artificial environment and sound nothing like the fans they represent in a normal environment are of no use to me. I think this is true of most users.

On a side note, was your calibration sound clip made in the same sound box? Do you have db chart of the sound data? Do the db levels accurately represent the fans?
post #15 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyll View Post

While the results do vary depending on who tests, the reputable companies get result that are similar.

Your m²/h readings are not similar, but are much higher than reputable company test results.
Companies gather varying results since there is of course not just a single world-wide facility and setup you are allowed to measure with.
Some results may match, some may be higher, some may be lower. There is no consistency you can rely on and you do not know how they tested their fans.

My results are (mostly) higher because of a unique testing setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyll View Post

But you are misrepresenting the meaning of m³/h by using it as the unit of measure for your readings. I would simply remove m³/h from all data. The numbers speak for themselves, but they in no way represent m³/h'
Since I am using an anemometer which is measuring air speed and calculating the flow rate it essentially represents the same procedure as any other (air vane) device. But you can impact the scaling of your results by changing the cross section (and matching the area settings) respectively the extent and nature of the chamber itself, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyll View Post

But what you posted "results in m³/h are not fixed to any common standard" says m³/h is not a common standard.
That is what you want to emphasize but not what I wanted to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doyll View Post

As for your sound clips, they may well represent what the fans sound like inside of a box like your recorded them in. But the problem is they do not sound like the same fans setting on a foam pad 10cm or a meter away from me .. or like they would if running in a case 10cm or a meter away. None of us are using our fans in a sound box and as such I believe your sound clips have no functional use to us.

Simply put, sound clips made in an artificial environment and sound nothing like the fans they represent in a normal environment are of no use to me. I think this is true of most users.
Didn't claim my recordings where completely objective and 100% representative (which is actually impossible to achieve).
And I won't force anyone to orientate by those samples.

But since an auditory event is fully subjective and varies from human to human it is senseless to argue about such topics, anyway. What you hear is not what I or any other user will hear. The fans that might sound silent to you won't sound silent to me (just as you are happy with 2BB and I am with FDB).
And neither audio samples nor dB(A) and Sone measurements will be able to technically solve that problem in general.

My clips were just an example of how the main characteristic may sound like, not how they do actually do under every circumstance the human mind could imaginate.
At least for myself I can comprehend whether there is any loud rattling emitted by the bearing or not. And that is basically what it all is about and what I can notice in the real life test / comparison, as well.

You are fully right to critize those recordings in general! But you should at least leave a small margin in which some people may find a little help when comparing (rattling vs non-rattling, cheeping vs non-cheeping etc.) fans.

...

Damn, we are really runing this forum.
Looks like I have chosen the wrong path rolleyes.gif
Edited by Dr Strangelove - 6/21/16 at 5:17am
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove View Post

Companies gather varying results since there is of course not just a single world-wide facility and setup you are allowed to measure with.
Some results may match, some may be higher, some may be lower. There is no consistency you can rely on and you do not know how they tested their fans.

My results are (mostly) higher because of a unique testing setup.
Since I am using an anemometer which is measuring air speed and calculating the flow rate it essentially represents the same procedure as any other (air vane) device. But you can impact the scaling of your results by changing the cross section (and matching the area settings) respectively the extent and nature of the chamber itself, of course.
That is what you want to emphasize but not what I wanted to say.
Didn't claim my recordings where completely objective and 100% representative (which is actually impossible to achieve).
And I won't force anyone to orientate by those samples.

But since an auditory event is fully subjective and varies from human to human it is senseless to argue about such topics, anyway. What you hear is not what I or any other user will hear. The fans that might sound silent to you won't sound silent to me (just as you are happy with 2BB and I am with FDB).
And neither audio samples nor dB(A) and Sone measurements will be able to technically solve that problem in general.

My clips were just an example of how the main characteristic may sound like, not how they do actually do under every circumstance the human mind could imaginate.
At least for myself I can comprehend whether there is any loud rattling emitted by the bearing or not. And that is basically what it all is about and what I can notice in the real life test / comparison, as well.

You are fully right to critize those recordings in general! But you should at least leave a small margin in which some people may find a little help when comparing (rattling vs non-rattling, cheeping vs non-cheeping etc.) fans.

...

Damn, we are really runing this forum.
Looks like I have chosen the wrong path rolleyes.gif
No, your test result are higher because they are inaccurate .. as in beyond normal range of error. Your system is not really unique. I built, tried and discarded one very similar to yours, .. and so have others.

I don't know why your results are not closer to accurate. Maybe you miss-calculated the m3/h from air speed, I don't know. But the simple fact is your m3/h numbers are consistently 20+% higher than any other data I've seen. Surely the manufacturers would have the highest if not very close to highest flow date, not independent testing. We have to keep in mind a +/-5% margin of error in any testing of this kind is to be expected .. and while +/-10 is not out unseen, +20% is simply too much to be even close to realistic.

What you wanted to say and what you said are not the same. m³/h is a standard unit of measurement. When you use it it has a specific meaning that we know is not what your numbers represent.

While your recordings may be objective, they do not at all representative of what we (the users of these fans) hear. Anyone who has any of the fans you recorded will know they are not representative at all. The problem is others who do know know they are representative may believe they are, and that is the problem.

While auditory events are subjective, your sound recording sound nothing like the actual fans sound in real use to human ear.

Your statement
Quote:
My clips were just an example of how the main characteristic may sound like, not how they do actually do under every circumstance the human mind could imaginate.
is key. A recording of a fan should sound at least similar to live sound of fan to the human ear. Your sound clips do not even remotely sound like the actual fans to the human ear.

While I feel bad saying all of this, especially on open forum, the facts are that your sound clips do not give the user any real usable reference to how the fans sound. What good is hearing "rattling vs non-rattling, cheeping vs non-cheeping etc." (do you mean chirping?) if the overal sound effect is nothing like what it is supposed to be representing?

You are right, we are hijacking the thread. blushsmiley.gif

I think testing and evaluating fans is the hardest component in a computer system to do. The above problems are why it is so extremely hard to do. I commend you for your effort, knowledge, skills and long hours spent at this project. But for it to be useful to users I realling think m³/h should not be part of the airflow figures. I have no idea how to salvage the work you put into the sound samples.
post #17 of 17
You don't get it... and we are talking past each other hmmsmiley02.gif

Sorry, but I'm signing out.
Edited by Dr Strangelove - 6/21/16 at 8:50am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Air Cooling
Overclock.net › Forums › Cooling › Air Cooling › Question about eLoop's on a fan controller