... and sound color (frequency characteristic)
The Silent Wings (Pro) 4 represent the pinnacle of computer fan range. The non-Pro variants stand out especially in system positions and are not well suited for radiators. This is by design and in line with the sort of “micro-segmentation” of BeQuiet. In a white design, like the one tested, it will be quite difficult to find other 140 mm fans that are quieter at comparable airflow.
33 dBA or 33 dBA
The noise level, given as a single dBA value, is good for quick reference, but it doesn’t give you an idea of exactly what the sound sounds like. That’s because it averages a mix of noise levels of all frequencies of sound. One fan may disturb you more than the other, even though they both reach exactly the same dBA, yet each is characterized by different dominant (louder) frequencies. To analyze thoroughly with an idea of the “color” of the sound, it is essential to record and assess noise levels across the entire spectrum of frequencies that we perceive.
We already do this in graphics card tests, and we’ll do it for fans too, where it makes even more sense. Using the UMIK-1 miniDSP microphone and TrueRTA’s mode-specific, fixed dBA application, we also measure which frequencies contribute more and which contribute less to the sound. The monitored frequency range is 20-20,000 Hz, which we’ll work with at a fine resolution of 1/24 octave. In it, noise levels from 20 Hz to 20 000 Hz are captured at up to 240 frequencies.
The information captured in the spectrograph is a bit more than we will need for clear fan comparisons. While you’ll always find a complete spectrograph in the tests, we’ll only work with the dominant frequencies (and their noise intensities) in the low, mid, and high bands in the comparison tables and charts. The low frequency band is represented by 20–200 Hz, the medium by 201–2000 Hz and the high by 2001–20 000 Hz. From each of these three bands, we select the dominant frequency, i.e. the loudest one, which contributes most to the composition of the sound.
To the dominant frequency we also give the intensity of its noise. However, in this case it is in a different decibel scale than those you are used to from noise meter measurements. Instead of dBA, we have dBu. This is a finer scale, which is additionally expressed negatively. Be careful of this when studying the results – a noise intensity of -70 dBu is higher than -75 dBu. We discussed this in more detail in the article Get familiar with measuring the frequency response of sound.
Strict acoustic safeguards are required to ensure that these measurements can be carried out with satisfactory repeatability at all. We use acoustic panels to measure the same values at all frequencies across repeated measurements. These ensure that the sound is always reflected equally to the microphone regardless of the distribution of other objects we have in the testlab. The baseline noise level before each measurement is also naturally the same. The room in which we measure is soundproofed.
Like the noise meter, the microphone has a parabolic collar to increase resolution. The latter is specially in this case not only to amplify but also to filter out the noises that occur whether we want them or not behind the microphone. We are talking about the physical activity of the user (tester). Without this addition, human breathing, for example, would also be picked up by the spectrograph. However, this is successfully reflected off the microphone sensor by the back (convex) side of the collar. As a result, the spectrogram only contains information about the sound emitted by the fan itself.
- Contents
- BeQuiet! Silent Wings 4 (BL117) 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
Is the very low speed characteristics similar to that observed in CPS RZ120?
This fan would have been much more competitive if it were to have closed corners by default. The corner swapping gimmick doesn’t seem to offer any actual benefit to me, as the vibrations are already low and similar results in dampening could already be achieved by using rubber mounts. They definitely could have saved some cost and/or priced the fan even more competitively by using integrated, closed corners instead of this gimmicky design.
That said, for users willing to DIY, this should still be a great radiator fan. All you need is some tape to seal up the corners, saving you quite a bit of money.
I mean the F5 R120. Confused with the cooler names.
Yes, if you encounter a lower airflow at the same noise level, a similar characteristic (as with the Silent Wings 4 BL117) is also found in the F5 R120. More fans have this. At such low speeds, the non-aerodynamic sounds must be extremely quiet to leave room to set the speed high enough for leading rankings.
Replacing the corners of the BL117 is really useful if only just to be able to install this fan on a radiator of a liquid cooler, where the SW4 doesn’t make much sense. Although the SW4 doesn’t need to be smeared too much in this scenario. Sure, due to the significant drop in placement compared to other fans, the urge is there, but at higher speeds it even outperforms the NF-A14. Sure, for a fan with modern geometry it’s more of a failure, but…
Using tape to seal the corners is a good DIY “trick”. 🙂
How would you compare it to the Pure Wings 3? This fan seems to constantly get outperformed by its cheaper sibling. The Pure Wings 3 does have a lower RPM limit, but there doesn’t seem to be other major disadvantages by going for the Pure Wings instead.
Now I’m really curious how the high speed, 9-blade version of the Pure Wings 3 performs.
The 140 mm Pure Wings 3 with 7 blades often seems to be a balanced (and a hair more more efficient) solution like the Silent Wings 4 (BL117). Although we have the SW4 in the white variant, which probably tends to be a bit noisier. These small differences (in tonal peaks) do not show up on radiators, where the tested PW3 variant has a significant advantage for obvious reasons (good sealing corners). We are also curious about the 9-blade Pure Wings 3 in 140 mm format. We will probably get to it after the announced Arctic P14 triple fan test (PWM PST, PWM PST CO and Max). 🙂
The Pure Wings 3 has a MTBF of 60 000 hours, which can be a disadvantage compared to Silent Wings 4 (with 300 000 hours). Lower robustness of critical parts in terms of durability (or change of properties over time) can also be indicated by the smaller impeller hub (of the PW3 BL108) and also at higher speeds relatively higher vibrations (again of the PW3 BL108), which could also indicate higher manufacturing tolerances. Of course, these vibrations could also be due to vibrations on the blades, but I assume they will be composed of several sources. And one of them will be related to the quality level of the impeller centering.
I guess the P14 trilogy will be consecutive releases then.
It’s a shame that we can’t have a Silent Wings 4 that comes with sealed corners, otherwise we’d have a reliable (and strong performing) 14 cm fan in the ~20$/£ price range that would compete very favourably vs. the Noctua A14 for example. I guess that’s done to prevent cannibalising their sales of their own flagship, but I’m not sure if it’s a smart move given the tough competition…
Yes, the next test will be the P14 PWM PST CO and I will conclude the trilogy (on Monday?) with the Max model.