It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:32 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:52 pm
Posts: 6
Hey Mike C,

As an amateur audiophile with some production experience, I've always noticed one thing missing from the SPCR recordings that would make them a lot more useful. In fact, it is so obvious I probably ought to have mentioned it years ago.

All of the recordings have a very loud ambient white noise. They sound like a 1980s casette tape. It is not necessary to leave this in. There is noise cancellation software that will analyze the ambient background noise and eliminate it from the recorded audio in real-time. This would allow the hard-drive noises to sound like they are recorded with CD quality rather than a casette tape that has been played 500 times in a 1982 Honda.

The industry standard noise cancellation package is the Waves Restoration bundle. It contains four plugins of which you'd be interested in the X-Noise plugin.

http://www.waves.com/content.asp?id=140

Incidentally, if you have a section of ambient noise saved from any previous recording, you can use a plugin like this to eliminate it. Thus depending on how you saved the original files it could be used to improve the recordings that have already been made.


Last edited by r33tr33t on Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:23 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1850
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
r33tr33t:

Have you read this article yet? We've just redesigned the way we make recordings, and one of the benefits of the new system is a lower noise floor.

That being the case, I think it's also important not to use noise cancelling software, since what we're recording is... noise. We want the recordings to reproduce what we hear — and that includes the ambient noise. In fact, we will be including a section of ambient noise in every recording we make from now on. This should help people judge the relative loudness of the noises we record.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:52 pm
Posts: 6
Devonavar -- I'm not sure that you understand my point or the nuances of the recording process.

This is your logic: If SPCR could record the hard drives in an $1 million anechoic chamber, it should decline to do so because the ambient noise of an average room is needed to produce a realistic comparative for hard drive noise.

A.K.A. according to you, the recordings "sound" noisy because they are highly amplified and, like a rising tide lifting all boats, in order to hear quiet hard drives you must also lift the normally quiet ambient room noise.

In fact the white noise that you hear over a microphone is very unlikely to be the ambient room noise. Look at the specs for the microphone in your "new" setup:

Quote:
Super-cardioid/lobar (short gun) microphone head suitable for K6 and K6P powering modules. Frequency response 40 - 20,000 Hz ± 2.5 dB, sensitivity (free field, no load) 50 mV/Pa ± 2.5 dB at 1 kHz, nominal impedance 200 Ohm (with K6), min. terminating impedance 1 kOhm (with K6), equivalent noise level A-weighted 10 dB, CCIR-weighted 21 dB, max. SPL 125 dB at 1 kHz (THD = 1 %), dimensions Ø 22.5 x 221 mm, weight 65 g.


The equivalent noise level of 10dB is as quiet as the mic will get with the minimal voltage that will pass through its preamp and circuitry, not including the noise from the XLR cable that is attached, the DAC in your sound card, and other impendence before it actually arrives as a sound file. Not to mention that at such low voltage, you need fairly expensive electrical equipment to ensure the nonvariablity of your electircal current.

"CCIR-weighted 21 dB" is a fancy way of saying that at one volt the noise of the microphone itself is 21dB. This is a more realistic "noise floor" to expect. This page explains some common mic terms. When you are recording and amplifying sounds in a range as quiet as 20dB, the microphone noise will be greater than or equal to the ambient noise of the average room.

It is the microphone noise that the noise cancellation software will eliminate. This is noise that interferes with a clear and lucid documentation of the hard drive noise.

I doubt that the microphone picks up ambient room noise above its own noise when recording. To test this, you might record the empty room with the naked microphone and then with plastic wrap and a pillow over the diaphragm of the microphone.

If you really wanted to have a baseline "hum" at, say, 20db in each recording in order to have a consistent reference for the hard drives, it would be best to insert that synthetically after you have eliminated the noise of the microphone itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:29 am
Posts: 70
Is there a difference between WD5000KS and WD5000YS (Raid Edition). The latter has the following desciption:

High Capacity and 24 x 7 Reliability
WD’s RAID Edition hard drives are the world’s most reliable server-class SATA drives in the market. With 1.2 million hours MTBF, 100% duty cycle, up to 3.0 Gb/s SATA technology, and best-in-class vibration tolerance, WD RE2 drives offer the best combination of superior reliability, high capacity, and optimum performance for enterprise applications.

_________________
Rigs have bespoke AcoustiProducts dampening, Nexus fans, and Samsung/WD drives
MCE2005: Accent HT-400 + Asus P5W DH Deluxe + 6600 Core2Duo (XP-120) + 7600GT (Zalman VF900)
GAMES: Antec 3700BQE + Asus P5W DH Deluxe + 6600 Core2Duo (Scythe Ninja) + 7900GTO
NLE: Antec 3700BQE + Abit IC7-G + 3.2 Prescott (Scythe Ninja) + 9800pro (volt mod. artic cooler)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:50 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:14 am
Posts: 475
Location: Leeds, UK
That just means it will cope better with a vibrating drive cage (for example if it's sharing a rack case with half a dozen other drives). It doesn't imply that it would produce any less vibration.
The difference is in testing and features, not mechanical design.

_________________
X2 4200+, XP-90 + Nexus 92mm, VTX 5750, SLK3700-BQE + AcoustiPack, 2 Nexus 120mm, Asrock 939Dual-SATA2, Raptor 74GB, Pioneer DVR-109B, S12 430. [url="http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16171"]SPCR thread[/url].
[url="http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48281"]HTPC build[/url] - NSK2480, Biostar TA690G, 4850e, Asus EAH5570 Silent, Minja, 4 GB RAM, WD GP .75TB + 1.5TB, iHES208 BD, Win7MC.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1850
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
r33tr33t:

I'm not clear whether you're suggesting that we get rid of ambient room tone (which I am against) or line noise from the recording setup (which I am for if you can convince me it is an issue).

Your first post suggests you are talking about room tone; hence my comments about including ambient noise. I don't agree that my logic would suggest not using an anecholic chamber for recordings. I don't think that ambient noise is necessary for a recording; I think it's unavoidable in our present circumstances.

Room colouration is inevitable when recording (or listening) in a live environment. It is inevitable under any realistic usage conditions, although the colouration may vary from use to use. Other people's experience can be different from our own. We can't control that. What we can control is how closely our recordings resemble what we hear, and that requires keeping the room tone in the recordings.

What I'm trying to say is that, in our case, cleaner isn't necessarily better. Noise cancellation software works by applying a filter that mirrors the frequencies in the ambient noise. That means that, while it does remove background noise, it also affects the frequency balance of the recording and the general tone of the noise. Given that the entire purpose of re-thinking our recording process was to improve the frequency balance, I don't see that applying a filter helps.

I also don't see what you're trying to prove by quoting me the specifications of my microphone. As I understand it, you are saying that the A-weighted noise floor of 10 dBA should be disregarded because it doesn't include noise from the rest of the recording system. Fair enough, but I don't see why the CCIR-weighted value should be any different. Furthermore, I should point out that all of our measurements are done with the A-weighted filter on the SLM. That means that when we quote an ambient level of 18 dBA, it should be signficiantly higher than the 10 dBA rating of our microphone. By the same token, when we remove the filter we tend to see ambient levels in the 30 dB range — much higher than the 21 dB CCIR rating. I realize that the CCIR rating includes a filter that I am not familiar with, but I trust Wikipedia to believe that "468-weighted measurements of noise are generally about 11 dB higher than A-weighted". The 11 dB difference in the specifications for the microphone bear this out. I can only conclude that our ambient room noise is higher than the noise floor of the microphone. Obviously, there is still potential for noise to be introduced in the rest of the system, but my impression is that the noise floor is still below the ambient noise level in the lab. The only sign of electrical noise that I hear is a hiss that is quite clearly not a part of the original source.

To sum up, I don't agree that we should be filtering out ambient room tone, and I don't think filtering out line noise is necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:52 pm
Posts: 6
Devonovar:

In any event, if the new recordings begin with a sample of the ambient room noise, which may or may not also contain significant line noise, it will be easy to filter it out and see if the drive sound improves.

In your view, improving the discernability of the drive sound does not necessarily improve the listener's ability to comparatively evaluate its noise level . . . this is where we will have to disagree.

The average person does not sit in a 20db room and think that they can "hear" the quiet ambient noise, whether it is there or not. In their perception, the room is silent. There is a degree to which the microphone represents ambient noise in a manner that is not congruent with human perception. To this degree ambient noise can and ought to be eliminated in a manner that does not diminish the sound that is being recorded in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:57 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1850
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
No, the average person does not sit and listen to ambient noise, but that doesn't prevent it from being there. The average person also does not sit try to evaluate the noise character of their computer either. Under ideal circumstances, both should be perceptibly silent because they are being tuned out.

However, that doesn't prevent them from turning their attention to the ambient noise and hearing it in that way. If they're going to be listening actively, they might as well have the ambient noise as well. In most cases, the ambient noise is quiet compared to the subject of the recording, so it can be easily tuned out. When the ambient noise is a factor is when the subject is so quiet that it is difficult to hear ... which is exactly what we are trying to show by including the ambient noise.

However, I think you may have a point when evaluating for noise character, not volume. After all, the reason we moved the microphone closer was to make the noise source more audible above the background noise. It is possible that these recordings would benefit from noise reduction if it can be done without distortion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 373
Location: S. Illinois
Regarding the WD5000KS, the ones of you that have it, where did you get it and what is your revision label?

I see newegg is at 214, ZZF at 218..

_________________
Silverstone FT02 w/ Seasonic X750 Gold / WD 1TB Black /12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600 / Asus P6X58D Premium / Intel Core i7 975 Extreme / XFX HD5870 / Pioneer BD-205 Blu-Ray Burner / Tuniq Tower 120 Extreme / Gateway FHD2400 24" LCD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: AAC software tool for WD
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:06 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Posts: 1809
Location: At Home
I picked up a WD3200KS today and it seemingly has a newer firmware revision: 00PFB0, the drive is dated 23 May 06.
I can’t find a way to turn AAC on though. What utility did you use to set AAC (Name, Version, O/S) and what SATA controller was the drive connected to?

I’ve looked at the forums here and on StorageReview and there is possibly an issue with not being able to set AAC on WD drives when connected to certain SATA controllers. If this is the case, it would be useful to include this information in the review so that people are pre warned.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:24 pm
Posts: 8
Hellspawn wrote:
Regarding the WD5000KS, the ones of you that have it, where did you get it and what is your revision label?

I see newegg is at 214, ZZF at 218..


I got mine today (haven't even plugged it in yet) from a danish online store... Its dated 14 MAR 2006 revision 00MNB0 - dunno what revision - where is that stated???

Recommendations for util for enabling AAM on this drive???


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:57 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1850
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
I used Hitachi's feature tool (booted into PC DOS from a floppy) to enable AAM. It was plugged into whatever SATA controller is on our heatsink rig ... an AOpen AX4GE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:22 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:45 am
Posts: 1809
Location: At Home
Thanks Devonavar,

Here's a LINK to the tool. They even provide a bootable ISO image which is very nice to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:24 pm
Posts: 8
HM wrote:
Hellspawn wrote:
Regarding the WD5000KS, the ones of you that have it, where did you get it and what is your revision label?

I see newegg is at 214, ZZF at 218..


I got mine today (haven't even plugged it in yet) from a danish online store... Its dated 14 MAR 2006 revision 00MNB0 - dunno what revision - where is that stated???

Recommendations for util for enabling AAM on this drive???


*sigh* Plugged it in - enabled AAM using hitachi/ibm tool.. partitioned using WDs own tools, and attempted to install winxp on it... froze half-way through copying files to hdd... Ran WDs lifeguard on it - first error code after 30 secs - i think it was 0600... Tried again - error code 0104... Sending it back now - and not planning on getting another: When plugged in, it was more noisy than my old maxtor diamondmax 10 200GB... And got really hot after 10 mins operation (50C+)

Any input?? - you guys think that it was noisy because it was defective??? Anyone have any idea what the error codes mean???

Cheers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:03 am
Posts: 1140
Location: Europe
Data Lifeguard error codes are listed here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:42 pm
Posts: 216
Location: Canada
smilingcrow wrote:
Thanks Devonavar,

Here's a LINK to the tool. They even provide a bootable ISO image which is very nice to see.



I find WinAAM to be more useful than the Hitachi software, because WinAAM can be run from the desktop (don't have to boot from a disk).

http://www.withopf.com/tools/aam/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:42 pm
Posts: 606
Location: UK
nice to see theres a windows AAM thing, didn't know that before...
dev wrote:
we will be including a section of ambient noise in every recording we make from now on
so, r33tr33t, perhaps you could produce a sample of what u were thinking of?..
i have noticed a large amount of white noise, but couldn't be sure weather it was SPCR recordings or my stereo...

_________________
i3-530, Gigabyte H55M-D2H, CM hyper212+ | Sempron64 3000+, Biostar Tforce 6100, AC Freezer 7, picopsu. 0 fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Manchester, UK
Has anyone re-checked their AAM setting after a reboot?

I have used both the Hitachi Feature Tool and WinAAM to change the AAM value from 254 to 128 (recommended), which appears to work. It makes a noticeable difference to the seek noise.

However, after a reboot, the AAM value always goes back to 254. I cannot get it to stay at 128. Does anyone else have this problem or know how to fix it?

Firmware version is 07.02E07.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Quiet! with a fair amount of vibration
PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:37 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Just got the WD5000KS installed. Very quiet! Lots of vibration though compared to my maxtor DM9s. No way can this be mounted in any way but foam or suspension.

Ended up using sponge rubber weatherstrip 1/2" from Ace. Pretty good stuff..wonder how it compares to sorbothane.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: My (Frustrating) WD5000KS Experiences
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:07 pm
Posts: 6
I also got a WD5000KS for my desktop PC due to its quietness. WD5000KS is much quieter than Seagate 500GB 7200.9 I have for my HTPC (Well, maybe I should have the 5000KS for HTPC ....). Except from the acoustics performance, WD5000KS is pretty warm and vibration is noticeable.

However I am not too happy with the quality of Western Digital hard drives. The first WD5000KS is defective (S.M.A.R.T. failure due to many bad sectors) and I have to spend hours to RMA and format/swap the disks. Secondly, WD hard drivers seems have (more?) problems with newer generations of high-efficiency power supply. My 10-month-old WD2500JS and the first defective WD5000KS all had boot-up (BIOS and WinXP) failures after I replaced my power supply (from a failed Antec PS to Antec Neo/HE and finally a Seasonic S12). Debugging and tracing down the cause of this power supply/hard drive problem is the one of the most frustrating experiences I had so far....

One suggestion is to get WD5000KS with latest firmware or built date. The second WD5000KS is built in 6/2006 and works well with the Seasonic PS while the defective one's biult date is 3/2006.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: WD5000YS - RAID EDITION
PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:18 am
Posts: 1
Does anyone know how the WD5000KS compares to the WD5000YS. The latter claims to be the raid edition. I've seen a few reviews that say it is identical, but clearly that cannot be the case. You presumably get extra features. Or maybe it's just warrantied differently.

Since I want to build a quiet raid array, I imagine that the raid edition might be the right disk to use, but it might not be quiet. Maybe it can be set to be acoustically equivalent to the KS.

PS You know I searched for 5000YS and did not hit on the post just a few before me that asked essentially the same thing; my apologies.

PPS I want to find the most compact enclosure for 4-5 disks, Mboard, and PSU that is also reasonably quiet.

PPPS Okay so I'm going to answer my own question with a link:
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q ... ex.x?pg=13
see also pg=14.
Apparently the warranty is much longer (5y), and the TLER is nice with an error correcting raid controller but should be disabled if you aren't using one. Plus it's a tad louder on the seek, but generally draws less power and is overall worth the price difference.

_________________
I hear dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:24 pm
Posts: 3
MikeMcr wrote:
Has anyone re-checked their AAM setting after a reboot?

I have used both the Hitachi Feature Tool and WinAAM to change the AAM value from 254 to 128 (recommended), which appears to work. It makes a noticeable difference to the seek noise.

However, after a reboot, the AAM value always goes back to 254. I cannot get it to stay at 128. Does anyone else have this problem or know how to fix it?

Firmware version is 07.02E07.
I have the same problem as you. What motherboard do you have? I have the P5W DH with 1201 BIOS.

I may be wrong but I suspect the BIOS is resetting the AAM value on each reboot (can't think what else is doing it!).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:24 pm
Posts: 3
I'm now all but sure the AAM issue is a problem with the P5W DH (and maybe other Asus motherboards?).

There is a German thread discussing the issue: click here

At the moment Asus seem to be saying they cannot fix it! Their reason seem very strange!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:11 pm
Posts: 15
Location: New York
Looking over the consumer reviews at Newegg, there seems to be an unusually high failure rate with these drives.

Of 76 reviews (as of 30 Sept 2006), about 19% report drives that were either DOA or which failed within a couple of months. Some reports mention excessive heat, but provide no details of how they were installed or what type of cooling (if any) was used. In fairness, many customers say the drive worked perfectly, but there appears to be a real QC issue with this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:37 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
mine is still working but then I use a generic heat sink link the nexus twin with a low flow fan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: SE16 WD5000KS
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:37 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Posts: 110
I am building a new system. It is still on the workbench, but I must say that I am disappointed by the Western Digital SE16 WD5000KS. I am using an old Seagate 40 GB drive in the system as well, and the Seagate is much, much quieter. The seeks on the Western Digital SE16 WD5000KS sound like a Geiger counter. This finding holds even after suspending the drive, turning it on its side, etc. Perhaps I've just hit on a sample variation, but this one is not very impressive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:24 pm
Posts: 3
Have you turned on AAM quiet mode? Mine is fine once that is engaged.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:59 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Posts: 110
I have activated Winamm. This helps a little, but the seek noise is still pretty prominent.

Again, putting the drive in the case may help. It is currently suspended in a frame about 2 feet away from me. The room is pretty noisy, though, since I am using a 16-inch room fan to cool the workbench. (Actually, this works quite nicely and no other fans are needed ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:43 am 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1850
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
John: Could you post the revision and point of origin for your drive? It would be good to keep tabs on this. If WD has changed something, we'll have to revisit whether it deserves our recommendation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Me to
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 7
I also got the Western Digital WD5000KS (well, it's listed as the WD5000KSRTL at MicroCenter as is every 500gb Western Digital drive - but the drive itself says WD5000KS on it).

And I to am a little underwhelmed by the quietness of the drive. It was a pretty annoying seek/write noise when I hooked it up. I turned on AAM using the Hitachi Feature Tool, and it made the drive noise drop to the range where I'm to lazy to return it, but it's certainly not anything I'd call "silent". I have an old 80GB Seagate drive running in another server in the same room, and the WD5000 makes about the same amount of noise (after turning on AAM). The Seagate makes a nicer noise, though, and if I had a choice I'd go with the Seagate (it's that 80gb vs 500gb thing that holds me back...).

With AAM on and the computer case open, the drive definitely isn't "nearly inaudible from one meter" while seeking. The noise from the drive sounds like the recorded noise - just louder than I expected.

I have two drives (I only ran 1 at a time for noise testing). MDL: WD5000KS - 00MN80
DATE: 14 NOV 2006
DCM: HBACAJAHB
Product of Thailand


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group