Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB HDD

Post by **MikeC** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:38 pm

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB HDD: half a terabyte...

winguy · Post by **winguy** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:18 am

Any chance of reviewing the one platter 160GB?

jojo4u · Post by **jojo4u** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:16 am

The ~465 gigabyte Windows calculated should be called gibibyte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

wing · Post by **wing** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 am

jojo4u wrote:The ~465 gigabyte Windows calculated should be called gibibyte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

Microsoft is following the old standard; many people (myself included) still are. "Gibi" just sounds too bizzare.

And (this is very important), don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia...

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:01 am

Great article, keep up the good work guys. I think Devon was right to highligh the high-frequency whine issue even though it may be negligible for some users as well as noticeable if not irritating for others. After all the raison d'etre of SPCR is to inform it's user base about the noise signatures of various components which have the potential to substantially reduce PC operating noise when employed appropriately, so an examination of the full spectrum of noise emission from said component is fully justified in this context.

FWIW, I probably wouldn't get the 7200.9 500GB even if I did need that much storage space; high-frequency hard drive whine is one of the hardest things to eliminate even with hard drive enclosures like the SmartDrive/SilentDrive.

Post by **MikeC** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:53 am

A correction made in the article:

According to our contact at Seagate, none of the current Seagate drives support AAM in any way, shape or form. All of their drives are set for maximum performance. This is true for all drives produced after the 7200.7 series, most of which had AAM: PATA models locked at lowest noise and SATA models locked at highest performance.

jaganath -- it was never a question of disclosure of the HF noise -- merely of its significance. I had a hard time hearing it except from certain angles in free air. With the thing set on our noise & vibe amplifying aluminum box, it's more plainly audible, but that's not exactly a normal way to use a hard drive. I haven't heard it in a system yet, tho I have no doubt it was indeed audible in Devon's system. Will have to try it soon.

Sooty · Post by **Sooty** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:50 pm

According to our contact at Seagate, none of the current Seagate drives support AAM in any way, shape or form. All of their drives are set for maximum performance. This is true for all drives produced after the 7200.7 series, most of which had AAM: PATA models locked at lowest noise and SATA models locked at highest performance.

That’s not to say Seagate haven’t devised other methods of quieting these new drives. Okay, so the 500GB isn’t so quiet, but there’s some encouraging feedback at NewEgg on the new NEW single platter SATA 160GB. Yes, single platter is always going to be quieter than 4 platters, but I’ve been studying NewEgg customer feedback, especially for the quieter 7200.7 PATA models. I’ve been attempting to turn words into statistics. Re. 160GB 7200.9 SATA - for 6 customers out of 8 (75%) to leave feedback, that specifically mentions the quietness of the drive, that percentage is up with the very best 7200.7 PATA (ST340014A 40GB = 71%). I know you need a lot more than 8 people to obtain relevant accuracy, but it’s some indication at least.

Post by **MikeC** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:00 pm

I have a 7200.9 160GB in my hands right now. Next on the HDD review list.

At idle, all the Seagates are pretty good -- excepting odd tones like the 1.5khz one in our 500GB sample -- but in seek, the absence of AAM is impossible to ignore. float it in suspension, and it gets a whole lot better, of course. We'll see how this 1-platter model fares.

Sooty · Post by **Sooty** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:21 pm

MikeC wrote:I have a 7200.9 160GB in my hands right now. Next on the HDD review list.

Can't wait

gamingphreek · Post by **gamingphreek** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:16 pm

MikeC wrote:I have a 7200.9 160GB in my hands right now. Next on the HDD review list.

At idle, all the Seagates are pretty good -- excepting odd tones like the 1.5khz one in our 500GB sample -- but in seek, the absence of AAM is impossible to ignore. float it in suspension, and it gets a whole lot better, of course. We'll see how this 1-platter model fares.

ALRIGHT!! Do you think it will be out soon, im waiting on SPCR. I dont trust anyone else with noise comparisons

mr_plow_king · Post by **mr_plow_king** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:07 pm

gamingphreek wrote: ALRIGHT!! Do you think it will be out soon, im waiting on SPCR. I dont trust anyone else with noise comparisons

Same for me. I need a 160 Gb Seagate in the next few days to add some gigabytes to my RAID 0 array. I have to choose between a .8 and a .9 don't know which one to pick !

Post by **MikeC** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:18 pm

mr_plow_king wrote:Same for me. I need a 160 Gb Seagate in the next few days to add some gigabytes to my RAID 0 array. I have to choose between a .8 and a .9 don't know which one to pick !

uhmmm... No comparison between these is promised; I doubt there will be any difference anyway. If you want a quick and dirty, I'd say at idle, it's very quiet, but in seek, others are better because of AAM. If you can do a "true" elastic suspension in a sturdy case, maybe with a bit of damping, then it's probably as quiet as anything else of that capacity, but if not, go with a known quiet drive that's been well reviewed and recommended by SPCR.

Gxcad · Post by **Gxcad** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:48 pm

Hm, I wonder how Devon and Mike compare in age, as hearing deteriorates with age...(though mostly known to be in higher frequencies). No, seriously.

I wonder if placing it on soft foam as a suspension technique would help the whine, since it seems to be eminating from the bottom of the drive?

-Ken

mr_plow_king · Post by **mr_plow_king** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:48 pm

Thanks, I guess I'll go with a Samsung Spinpoint P 160 Gb. I hope it won't cause any problems to my RAID array with 2 Seagate 160Gb

Post by **MikeC** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:18 pm

Gxcad --

He's less than half my age.

The age-related falloff in the highs starts way higher than 1.5KHz. More like 10~15KHz. 1.5KHz is generally considered to be mid-band. It's about 2 octaves higher than middle A.

Devon has better overall sensitivity. I'm sure I've exposed myself to a lot more loud concerts, bars, music on my hifi. He's probably a couple dB more sensitive. IE, if I can't hear a noise once it drops below 15 dBA, he might be able to hear it down to 13. My guess. We've never tested/compared.

PositiveSpin · Post by **PositiveSpin** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:17 am

Just letting my inner pedant off the leash for a moment:

Yes, there is a 32bit Unicode character set, but the commonly used one (eg: Windows NT series) is 16bit, not 32. Therefore you err in saying that the 500Gb (gigabyte, not gibibyte) drive will only hold 125 x 10**9 characters - it will hold 250 x 10**9 characters.

And it will hold even more if you use UTF-8 and text that's predominantly in ASCII

Now excuse me while I try and get this leash back onto my inner pedant...

Zar0n · Post by **Zar0n** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:09 am

Nice review.
I know u specialize in sound but could u also include some sort of performance benchmarks.
Ex. large file copy/read, game loads, rar unpack.
Thanx

Ackelind · Post by **Ackelind** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:11 am

Check storagereview for that instead, that is their speciality.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:16 am

I know u specialize in sound but could u also include some sort of performance benchmarks.
Ex. large file copy/read, game loads, rar unpack.

7200.9 SPCR Article Page 3

Our samples were tested according to our standard hard drive testing methodology. Our methodology focuses specifically on noise, and great effort is taken to ensure it is comprehensively measured and described. Performance is not tested, for reasons discussed in detail in the methodology article. For comprehensive HDD performance testing results, we recommend Storage Review, who have a long established reputation as the specialist in this field. They reviewed the Barracuda 7200.9 on October 31, 2005.

Storage Review Test Drive The 7200.9

wainwra · Post by **wainwra** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:25 am

<nitpick mode='on'>
I thoroughly approve of the use of English in this bit:

From the acoustic point of view, assuming similar noise levels, one capacious drive to replace two or more smaller drives is preferable. The amount of heat in a system also drops with fewer drives, making the whole system easier to cool with lower airflow (and reduced concomittant noise) so for users who seek to use a PC as a media center full of large files, high capacity drives do make sense.

Rather surprisingly though, it's spelled "concomitant".
</nitpick>

wainwra · Post by **wainwra** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:09 am

... and now I've actually read the article:

Great review! You guys have such a wonderful style. I find I'm dying to hear how the subsequent foam-underlay silencing attempts work out, even though I'm unlikely to buy one of these drives myself.

MikeC wrote:The age-related falloff in the highs starts way higher than 1.5KHz. More like 10~15KHz. 1.5KHz is generally considered to be mid-band. It's about 2 octaves higher than middle A.

Devon has better overall sensitivity. I'm sure I've exposed myself to a lot more loud concerts, bars, music on my hifi. He's probably a couple dB more sensitive. IE, if I can't hear a noise once it drops below 15 dBA, he might be able to hear it down to 13. My guess. We've never tested/compared.

1.5kHz may be mid-band, but it's still quite a high note. My calculations put it just above the highest note that most sopranos in a choir would be able to sing.

From reading Mike's reviews, I have to conclude that his hearing is good, as he has clearly been bothered by sounds which other people can ignore (or not hear).

I don't know very much about monitoring hearing. Is there a way to objectively measure a person's hearing sensitivity, so that the results could be shown on a graph (sensitivity vs frequency)? If there is, I would pay good money to have Mike and Devon tested!

Tephras · Post by **Tephras** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:29 pm

wainwra wrote:I don't know very much about monitoring hearing. Is there a way to objectively measure a person's hearing sensitivity, so that the results could be shown on a graph (sensitivity vs frequency)? If there is, I would pay good money to have Mike and Devon tested!

It's called audiometry and results in a audiogram. Haven't you been sitting with headphones in one of those sound-dampened chambers and pressing a button when you hear a sound? Where I live it's a standard procedure during the health controls in compulsory school.

Hobbes26 · Post by **Hobbes26** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:39 pm

MikeC wrote:Gxcad --

He's less than half my age.

The age-related falloff in the highs starts way higher than 1.5KHz. More like 10~15KHz. 1.5KHz is generally considered to be mid-band. It's about 2 octaves higher than middle A.

Devon has better overall sensitivity. I'm sure I've exposed myself to a lot more loud concerts, bars, music on my hifi. He's probably a couple dB more sensitive. IE, if I can't hear a noise once it drops below 15 dBA, he might be able to hear it down to 13. My guess. We've never tested/compared.

Age-related hearing loss might affect the really high frequencies... but exposure to more noise and loud noises in general affects the mid-frequencies quite a bit

Did you contact the manufacturer regarding the high-pitched whine? Perhaps it was only in your sample?

nici · Post by **nici** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:28 pm

Tephras wrote: It's called audiometry and results in a audiogram. Haven't you been sitting with headphones in one of those sound-dampened chambers and pressing a button when you hear a sound? Where I live it's a standard procedure during the health controls in compulsory school.

I´ve been in those chambers pressing the button several times during school

Hobbes26 wrote:...but exposure to more noise and loud noises in general affects the mid-frequencies quite a bit

IM SORRY COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? No seriously, i have pretty sensitive hearing, and i have very very low ambient noise. Even more seriously, i should be sleepin. Anyone have a spare life for rent?

Ibliss · Post by **Ibliss** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:17 pm

nice review, as always.

do these new seagate still exhibit the god-awful self diagnostic noises, as I mentioned a while ago in this thread:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=23810

I'm in no hurry to buy seagates if that is the case.

marielaure · Post by **marielaure** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:33 am

The 1560 Hz sound is ± 28 dB higher than adjacent frequencies; if all 500 GB 7200.9 Seagates have this then I think I'm gonna keep buying "old" Seagate drives

Post by **MikeC** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:44 am

marielaure wrote:The 1560 Hz sound is ± 28 dB higher than adjacent frequencies; if all 500 GB 7200.9 Seagates have this then I think I'm gonna keep buying "old" Seagate drives

And how are you determining this +28 dB? If it really was, there would have been absolutely no question about its audibility at any time during our testing. Whatever way you are getting this #, it's wrong.

ATWindsor · Post by **ATWindsor** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:45 pm

wing wrote:
jojo4u wrote:The ~465 gigabyte Windows calculated should be called gibibyte

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix
Microsoft is following the old standard; many people (myself included) still are. "Gibi" just sounds too bizzare.

And (this is very important), don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia...

No they are not, Giga is part of the SI-standard, giga was defined loooooooong before MS was even created (and its used by all other fields as 1000 000 000, HD-manufacturers and network-numbers are correct). 500 GB is the coorect way to state the capacity, or 465 GiB, 465 GB simply is incorrect.

AtW

tweakt · Post by **tweakt** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:12 pm

Sooty wrote:...but I’ve been studying NewEgg customer feedback, especially for the quieter 7200.7 PATA models. I’ve been attempting to turn words into statistics.

I'm pretty sure Newegg "filters" reviews to show more positive ones.

marielaure · Post by **marielaure** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:54 am

MikeC I've done the analysis again and it's more like +23dB. See http://bingouille.ifrance.com/ (of course it's best viewing the jpg in 100% size; many browsers will badly resize the 1280*999 picture down, if so, find the no-resize option in your browser's picture display parameters, or simply download a copy of the 412 KB jpg file and view it at 100% size).
Also you can see on this graph that 450-750 Hz frequency range has similar amplitude to 1560 Hz pike; however human ear is particularly able to differentiate between two sound samples in the 200-2000 Hz frequency range so the 1560 Hz is easily audible apart from anything else.
I can extract the 1560 Hz pike sound from the rest of the frequency range (and keep amplitude unchanged) and post a small wav or mp3 to help identify what is a 1560 Hz sound.
Really hope your 7200.9 sample was bad // Seagate's nice reputation in hard disk noise aspects would hardly survive to such a bad thing as this 1.5kHz pike...

Anyway
many thanks for your site, reviews, forums; it gave me great help a few days ago to determine what hard drives (which I seem to consume like cherries) to buy; after examining all those great mp3 samples in a multitrack audio mixer (to easily compare and switch from one to another) I just ordered 4 Samsung SpinPoint P120 (250 GB ultraATA version)

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB HDD

Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB HDD

typo