Blade length is always the “topic”, but will be more common with 140mm fans than smaller variants. Some bet on long blades for preference of selected features, the other manufacturer on short ones. And such (short) and overall more robust blades are also used by the 140mm Aorus fan. From certain points of view this is quite a big advantage, but for which something had to be sacrificed. It’s a quid pro quo.
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.
Nice to see the 140mm fan reviews rolling!
Also, would it be possible to publish noise samples for your fan/cooler reviews? Preferably for all scenarios where you perform frequency analysis?
And they will continue to come, tests of 140 mm fans. But we probably won’t exaggerate it, so that they stay in a relevant ratio (according to the interest in whichever format in general) to 120 mm models.
Which noise samples do you mean? From spectrographs? Do you want that data for your own purposes, for your own analysis? If so, we can send you the noise levels at all frequencies in all tested scenarios almost immediately (e.g. by e-mail). We can certainly post them on the web somewhere, but it will take more time, as we will need to create a section for this somewhere. Making it make sense on the web will be more time-consuming and at the moment we are quite overloaded and it is hard to find space for extra activities. :/
Always looking forward to your fan reviews regardless of size!
For noise samples, I mean audio files so I can listen to them to make a subjective judgement. In reviews you often mention the differences in frequencies between obstacles/fan models etc. With audio files to listen to, it will be much more easy to understand the difference.
Maybe you can consider compiling the audio files for each fan and upload to YouTube as a video, for example, which perhaps take relatively little effort, though I am not sure if the audio quality is satisfactory. Anyway, it is only a suggestion so please decide on whether you think it is worth the effort or not.
I understand now, and I am also sorry that I am now likely to disappoint you.
Sound recordings are something I boycott against and the goal is to get more and more people to learn to read spectrograms. Sure, it’s more complicated, but we plan to publish materials to facilitate reading these charts. We will select a few fans that have the biggest differences in the frequency characteristic of the sound, make a sound recording of them, and put a spectrogram against it. On it we then explain which component of the sound represents what in the spectral analysis.
You know, I’m willing to sacrifice all my time for these things, but I have to see some meaning behind the results. And sound recordings don’t make sense to me because they can be extremely misleading. While the user thinks he’s hearing the fan, the sound system with the speaker on top is laughing at how they have been perfectly fooled. It is certainly not necessary to elaborate that the same recording sounds different on each speaker (it is determined by the frequency characteristics of the sound equipment of the end user), and this also with regard to the volume that the person sets. To judge something on the basis of the sound recording is therefore very inaccurate and misleading. I would probably suffer a lot when making them with my high demands on the relevance of things and at the same time it would reduce the relevance of spectrogram, which everyone sees the same way.
I believe that after this message you will not give up on our tests and sooner or later you will surely find out (also with the help of various auxiliary materials, which we plan to publish on this topic), that you understand everything perfectly also with the help of spectrograms. 🙂
Not disappointed at all, very satisfied with your answer. Looking forward to the articles explaining spectrograms, I’ll admit I never really understood how to interpret them.