Seagate 7200.9

Silencing hard drives, optical drives and other storage devices

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
Sooty
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:15 am
Location: UK

Seagate 7200.9

Post by Sooty » Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:29 am

According to someone at Storage Review, they’re in stock already. Is anyone using them? Does Seagate still have a dispute with AAM?

tragus
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:19 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by tragus » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:45 am

If you'll excuse quoting from a message in the thread over at Anandtech, a Seagate *presales* person stated:
Presales has been advised that these drives would be out possibly late
November or early December. However, it is subject to change. We hope to
see them soon. We are tentatively expecting it during Seagate's fiscal
year 2006.
Hence, I would be cautious about claimed availability by retailers. Seagate has historically been a bit slow is releasing brand-new new models into the distribution channels after announcements.

That said, I want some, but will probably settle for the 400GB models (in a NAS box, safely away from human ears) because we need them now, not in x months.
This space for rent. Will oppress peasants for food.

stromgald
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:45 pm
Location: California, US

Post by stromgald » Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:59 am

AFAIK, the AAM issue is still around. I doubt it'll be quieter than the 7200.8s since they dont seem to mention any new quieting technology. Nothing exciting IMO, just more GB/platter. :(
Brother's: Antec 3000B, C2D E6600, ASUS P5K, XFX 6850, 4GB DDRe RAM, 160GB Seagate 7200.8 & 2x 2TB Caviar Green, ASUS 16X DVD-ROM, Sony DVD-RW, Corsair 400W, Thermalright HR-01, 2x Scythe 120mm Low Speed Fans
Mine: Antec NSK3480 w/EA 380W, i5-750, Gigabyte P55M-UD4, Sapphire 5750, 4GB DDR3, 60GB OCZ Agility & 500GB Seagate 7200.8, Xigmatek HDT-S964

tragus
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:19 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by tragus » Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:32 am

Well, as of this posting, Newegg claims to have the 7200.9 500MB in stock.

Of course, you'll pay US$452 for the privilege (compared to US$370 for the Hitachi SATA2 or US$330 for the Hitachi SATA1, either at 500MB).
This space for rent. Will oppress peasants for food.

Yomat
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:41 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Yomat » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:36 am

Well.. the discussion in that thread on StorageReview brings up a point that could make 7200.9 interesting. There will be 1 platter variants (160 and 80 Gb). All 7200.8 models had at least 2 platters.

Would make up for the disappointment I had when the 100Gb/platter HDs started showing up but all were at least 2 platters. I dont know the technical reason for this but it seems like all manufacturers did the same thing with the 100gb/platter models. Perhaps its a totally different technique from what they used before. It seems like Seagate is going back to the old method. Anyone know if the 'older method' makes any difference noise-wise?
Chaos is easy, order is tough.

afrost
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 9:42 am

Post by afrost » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:42 am

one platter should be slightly less heat if nothing else.....

I like the idea of one platter

Tzeb
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:29 pm

Post by Tzeb » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:51 am

Introducing Seagate's 7200.9: The New Generation
Seagate is also reporting a lower sound rating between 25-28 decibels while the drives are idle, and about 28-32 decibels while the drives are seeking for data. The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels, so the idle noise output is borderline inaudible to our ears. Combine this with the hum of case and heat sink fans, and the hard drive is basically silent.

Tiamat
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:27 pm
Location: Washington DC

Post by Tiamat » Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:43 am

Tzeb wrote:Introducing Seagate's 7200.9: The New Generation
Seagate is also reporting a lower sound rating between 25-28 decibels while the drives are idle, and about 28-32 decibels while the drives are seeking for data. The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels, so the idle noise output is borderline inaudible to our ears. Combine this with the hum of case and heat sink fans, and the hard drive is basically silent.
That quote from Anandtech, was describing the seagate chart of Sound power Level. Im not sure if Sound Power Level is comparable to Sound Pressure Level numerically, although they are two different entitities.

tkirmuc
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:44 am

7200.9

Post by tkirmuc » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:24 pm

I hope that with new 7200.9 series that annoying self diagnostic/seek-like buzzing noise (present in both 7200.7 & 7200.8) is gone.
I really consider dropping Seagate drives due to that noise.

rpsgc
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:59 am
Location: Portugal

Post by rpsgc » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:41 pm

The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels
LOL ? That's just BS to me.
Fractal Define R4 | Corsair AX750 | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 | Intel Core i7 4770K w/TRUE 120 Rev. C | 16GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 | Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 8GB OC | Crucial m4 128GB + Crucial MX100 512GB + WD Blue 1TB + WD Red 4TB | JVC HA-RX900 | Dell U2312HM + BenQ G2400WD | Asus Echelon Mechanical Keyboard | Logitech G400s

Shining Arcanine
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by Shining Arcanine » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:29 pm

rpsgc wrote:
The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels
LOL ? That's just BS to me.
Earlier today, I sent the author an email regarding why he was wrong and telling him that he could check with Mike if he doesn't believe me. Lets hope he listens to my advice. Otherwise quite a few people will think you can translate decibels into bels and back.

rpsgc
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:59 am
Location: Portugal

Post by rpsgc » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:40 pm

No no no, he's right of course! My Antec TriCool @ Low is about 20dBA but I can hear it, so that means I have super-human hearing! :D :D :D

he he ;)
Fractal Define R4 | Corsair AX750 | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 | Intel Core i7 4770K w/TRUE 120 Rev. C | 16GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 | Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 8GB OC | Crucial m4 128GB + Crucial MX100 512GB + WD Blue 1TB + WD Red 4TB | JVC HA-RX900 | Dell U2312HM + BenQ G2400WD | Asus Echelon Mechanical Keyboard | Logitech G400s

sapphirecat
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:19 am
Location: Jamestown NY USA
Contact:

Post by sapphirecat » Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:37 am

rpsgc wrote:
The lowest amount of sound audible by human ears is 26 decibels
LOL ? That's just BS to me.
As Tiamat mentioned, that's a sound power level, which is a sum of all acoustic noise emitted by a source. It's something like measuring the pressure at a lot of different points, and figuring out the total amount of force applied from the measurements. I'd guess there's no way to compute pressure from power without knowing the environment due to multipath effects, but there's no way a sound pressure at any given point can be higher than sound power. Unless, perhaps, it was resonating with some other sound, but that would be another environment-specific issue.

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on the accuracy of the 26 dB(A) figure, though.
[size=75]...:: sapphirecat ::...
...:: Seasonic S12-330 .:. Asus A7V600-X (VIA KT600) .:. Athlon XP 2400+ (2.0 GHz) w/ disconnect and Nexus AXP3200 .:. 80GB Barracuda IV w/ Nexus DiskTwin .:. 256MB DDR-266 .:. Radeon 9250 .:. 120mm Nexus .:. Gentoo Linux ::...[/size]

rpsgc
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1630
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:59 am
Location: Portugal

Post by rpsgc » Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:35 am

Sound power = B
Sound level = dB

The article says dB.
Fractal Define R4 | Corsair AX750 | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 | Intel Core i7 4770K w/TRUE 120 Rev. C | 16GB G.Skill Sniper DDR3-1866 | Sapphire Nitro+ RX 480 8GB OC | Crucial m4 128GB + Crucial MX100 512GB + WD Blue 1TB + WD Red 4TB | JVC HA-RX900 | Dell U2312HM + BenQ G2400WD | Asus Echelon Mechanical Keyboard | Logitech G400s

Shining Arcanine
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:02 pm

Post by Shining Arcanine » Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:46 am

Not anymore, now the article says bels. Basically, the pictures said bels while the article said decibels.

tkirmuc
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:44 am

Post by tkirmuc » Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:33 am

I use few 7200.7 & 7200.8 and I must say it is disaster. They are reliable, but that off-line buzzing self-dianostic is unacceptable for me. I need to buy some new 160GB or 250GB but I don't know if I should wait for 7200.9 or should I just switch to much quieter Samsungs.
I can't believe that Barracuda IV and 7200.x is from the same company. Someone is making bad decisions there. I would be very happy to pay extra money to have better/silent drive from my beloved Seagate but it seems Seagate don't need such customers like me anymore.

Straker
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: AB, Canada
Contact:

Post by Straker » Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:02 pm

Shining Arcanine wrote:Otherwise quite a few people will think you can translate decibels into bels and back.
Blame whoever originally thought it was a good idea to refer to sound power in terms of bels instead of watts when dealing with electronics.

Obviously the author screwed up pretty bad, but in most cases when people refer to x dB as x/10 bels, it's not because they're mistaken or trying to deceive; decibels are just a more convenient unit for human purposes. I remember getting into a big stupid argument with MikeC a while back because he assumed I didn't know what the difference between sound intensity (pressure) and power was (I did) and because I really had no idea wtf his problem was until I noticed he kept referring to power as bels for some reason. :lol:
That figure is just silly though. If it's referring to power, well, 100 bels would be inaudible if it were buried in a mile of concrete (or too high/low for humans). If that's intensity, 0dB is by definition the lowest "amount of sound audible by human ears", ie 1x10^-12 W/m^2.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:03 pm

I have got a few 80GB PATA 7200.9's.

They are quick thanks to the 160GB per platter density, and is using one side, and one head. the seeks are not that fast, but data transfer rate starts at 75MB per second. That was not a typo.!!!

As far as the noise is concerned, it sounds very similar to the 7200.7 80GB PATA drives, possibly being a little quiter, however I havent had the chance to have a good listen, with a quiet PC. There is no more vibration than a good 7200.7, and I couldnt feel any seek induced vibration either.

The drives were all made in China, which has made all of the quitest Seagate 7200.7's I have encountered.

All in all, this drive would be at home in my PC if I didnt need lots of storage and were on a budget. I dont know how the larger drives, or SATA drives compare.

Looking forward to a review by SPCR, ideally more than one sample (i.e. a SATA and a PATA, and different amounts of platters).


Andy
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,400MHz, 512GB 850 EVO, 500 Extreme II, 2x 2.5" drives, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr.
Server, under reconstruction, 380W Enermax Pro82+, positive pressure only.

Hellspawn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 3:37 pm
Location: S. Illinois

Post by Hellspawn » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:22 pm

andyb wrote:I have got a few 80GB PATA 7200.9's.

They are quick thanks to the 160GB per platter density, and is using one side, and one head. the seeks are not that fast, but data transfer rate starts at 75MB per second. That was not a typo.!!!

As far as the noise is concerned, it sounds very similar to the 7200.7 80GB PATA drives, possibly being a little quiter, however I havent had the chance to have a good listen, with a quiet PC. There is no more vibration than a good 7200.7, and I couldnt feel any seek induced vibration either.

The drives were all made in China, which has made all of the quitest Seagate 7200.7's I have encountered.

All in all, this drive would be at home in my PC if I didnt need lots of storage and were on a budget. I dont know how the larger drives, or SATA drives compare.

Looking forward to a review by SPCR, ideally more than one sample (i.e. a SATA and a PATA, and different amounts of platters).


Andy

What about the infamous 'patrol seeks' as some have referred to them as?

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:53 pm

tkirmuc wrote:Someone is making bad decisions there. I would be very happy to pay extra money to have better/silent drive from my beloved Seagate but it seems Seagate don't need such customers like me anymore.
I think the reason they don't make quiet drives anymore is because none of the other drives are all that loud now. Before, having the lowest noise ratings was probably useful for getting people to switch from much noisier drives, and for assuring people that having multiple seagates or adding a seagate in addition to whatever drive they have won't drive them insane.

tkirmuc
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:44 am

Post by tkirmuc » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:30 pm

andyb wrote:
What about the infamous 'patrol seeks' as some have referred to them as?
According to Seagate pre-sales support, this 'patrol seeks' (which is called by them as 'self-diagnostic') is also present in 7200.9 series.

T.

Dirge
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by Dirge » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:35 pm

I am looking for information on the 160GB Seagate 7200.9 and hoping SPCR will review the dive.


At least one person in the forum has had a bad experience with the single platter 160GB model. Stating it is very loud with a audible wine.

http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewto ... light=7200

I hope that this users experience is an exception to the rule, but we need more feedback.

Sooty
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:15 am
Location: UK

Post by Sooty » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:44 am

AnandTech 7200.9 500GB review:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2577&p=1

AnandTech Thermal & Acoustics stats:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... =2577&p=14

Tech sheet:
http://mcn.oops.jp/wiki/index.php?HDD%2 ... a%207200.9
I wonder why they don’t use 160GB platters throughout the range?

Sooty's Silent Seagate Survey – please add your feedback for 7200.7/8/9 drives: http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=26207

gamingphreek
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 7:57 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by gamingphreek » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:20 pm

Sooty wrote:AnandTech 7200.9 500GB review:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... i=2577&p=1

AnandTech Thermal & Acoustics stats:
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdo ... =2577&p=14

Tech sheet:
http://mcn.oops.jp/wiki/index.php?HDD%2 ... a%207200.9
I wonder why they don’t use 160GB platters throughout the range?

Sooty's Silent Seagate Survey – please add your feedback for 7200.7/8/9 drives: http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=26207
Well they cant use the 160's because they simply dont add up to the correct ammount of space.

I post mostly on AT, so i know their reviews are excellent. However, i dont know about their noise reviews. They report it as the lowest idle noise, but a moderately noisey seek.

Therefore i find it hard to believe that the 500gig model with what 4 platters and IIRC 8 heads, is louder and cooler than a 160gig model with 1 platter and 2 heads. Just seems pretty strange, not to discredit that person who posted, but the review does appear to be against him in all accounts.

-Kevin
"Do or do not... there is no try." -Yoda

Sooty
Posts: 625
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:15 am
Location: UK

Post by Sooty » Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:13 am

gamingphreek wrote: Well they cant use the 160's because they simply dont add up to the correct ammount of space.
Correct amount of space? What's wrong with 80/160/320/480/640GB drives?

mrk22
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:31 pm

Post by mrk22 » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:18 pm

Correct amount of space? What's wrong with 80/160/320/480/640GB drives?
Marketing. The average consumer would rather buy a 500GB drive than a 480GB drive even if the 480GB drive had fewer platters.

Post Reply