Thermalright XP-120

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:16 pm

What motherboard do you have? Some motherboards, particularly ABITs, are known to overreport as much as 12C; of course, others underreport, such as ASUStek, as much as 8C.

ONEshot · Post by **ONEshot** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:08 pm

Ralf Hutter wrote:
SilverBeard wrote:
Did you have to mod the Globe fan to mount it on the XP-120? I read elsewhere that they have closed corners.
Yes, they have closed corners. It takes about 5-10 minutes to do a nice clean Dremel job on them but they're such quiet fans that i just sucked it up and did it.

SilverBeard wrote:Where did you put the thermistor? Am I correct in inferring that you run the Globes at 12V and let the thermistor take care of keeping them quiet?
The thermistor on these Globe has to get pretty darn hot to even slightly start to ramp the fan speed up. It's basically worthless. I've been playing with two Globes. One has the thermistor left on and it's just hanging in the breeze. The other has the thermistor cut off and it's leads shorted together.

A few months ago I played with some other Globes and found the only way to get the thermistor hot enough to ramp up the fan speed at all was to jam it into the base of the heatsink. Even then, it wouldn't raise the fan speed more than about 10% max, and that only occurred under extended sessions of full load heat testing.

I think I might be a little confused... so Ralf, you believe that the thermistor is BAD because it cant ramp UP?

Please explain

oceancyc · Post by **oceancyc** » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:39 pm

Edward Ng wrote:What motherboard do you have? Some motherboards, particularly ABITs, are known to overreport as much as 12C; of course, others underreport, such as ASUStek, as much as 8C.

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:23 am

Wow, that has to be the first time I've seen two pieces of software disagree on what temperature the motherboard is reading. I've never had a board do that before (i.e. the BIOS always reads the same temps as the software included with the board as Motherboard Monitor).

I recommend calibrating your mainboard; check your PM box, please.

-Ed

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:57 am

An all copper version would exceed the weight restrictions for most highways! =P

Bryan

here's a little table I made with different heatsinks and their approx. weight, can be off 50gr.. but it gives you an idea where to rank the XP-120

http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthr ... #post72993

hope it helps

cmcquistion · Post by **cmcquistion** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:06 am

Overclockers.com just did a review of the new Thermalright XP-90, which appears to have nearly identical performance to the XP-120.

Their testing methods are different from SPCR, of course, but one thing that they do is take a screamer fan and turn it down to various speeds/noise levels and take measurements from there. If you compare the two reviews, you can take their <50dBA score and compare the two heatsink's performance at those noise levels. In that case, the XP-90 scored 0.18 C/W, compared to the XP-120's 0.19 C/W , at a similar noise level. Of course, it is always hard to compare different heatsinks using different fans, but it is an interested comparison, none the less.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1094/

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1043/

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:26 am

that XP-90 looks bad ass

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:41 am

oceancyc wrote:I just installed my XP-120 today with a Panaflo M1A. I have to say I'm dissapointed by its performance. Core Center says my CPU Temps 63 deg c and my Sys Temps 37 deg c. What could I be doing wrong. Tha fan is pointed at the HS BTW.[/img]

What CPU/Mobo are you using?

Are you sure the TIM was properly applied and the heatsink is properly mounted?

HammerSandwich · Post by **HammerSandwich** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:01 am

And what temps did you have with the previous (stock?) HSF, oceancyc?

SilverBeard · Post by **SilverBeard** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:01 pm

jmke wrote:that XP-90 looks bad ass

I contacted Thermalright tech support about the XP-90. They said it is about 3C cooler than a SLK-948U!

And no known MB incompatibilities which is good, as the same tech support says that the XP-120 will NOT fit the upcoming DFI LanPartyUT 250GB 754 board that I am planning to get.

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:12 pm

the XP-120 makes for a tight fit on my Asus P4C800 I'm using for testing, some capacitors are bend. Using a Papst 18dba 4412 F/2GLL 120mm fan makes for an excellent combo.

sucking air away from the XP-120 also improves performance, but expect no miracles

SilverBeard · Post by **SilverBeard** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:40 pm

jmke wrote:the XP-120 makes for a tight fit on my Asus P4C800 I'm using for testing, some capacitors are bend. Using a Papst 18dba 4412 F/2GLL 120mm fan makes for an excellent combo.

sucking air away from the XP-120 also improves performance, but expect no miracles

The Thermalright XP-120 page does list the P4C800 as having a fit problem with the caps, with bending required which can be risky. If that is the only problem on the new DFI, it might not be too bad, but the XP-90 seems like a safer route.

sorenbro · Post by **sorenbro** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:44 pm

jmke wrote:the XP-120 makes for a tight fit on my Asus P4C800 I'm using for testing, some capacitors are bend. Using a Papst 18dba 4412 F/2GLL 120mm fan makes for an excellent combo.

How fast does the 120mm Papst fan spin at 12V? I thought the slowest spinning Papst 120mm fan was the one they rate at 26db

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:01 pm

1260rpm and it's already very silent @ 18dba, using a rheobus I put it on its most slowest setting ~850rpm and almost got my hair stuck into the blades when trying to put my ear closer to hear it spin

this is the one I use: http://www.pc-cooling.de/catalog/artike ... ts_id=4821

this is the one you refer too I think, http://www.pc-cooling.de/catalog/artike ... ts_id=1822 (26 dBA)

mpteach · Post by **mpteach** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:57 pm

Ralf Hutter wrote:Well, in my case I've grown up listening to lots of live, unamplified actual music, mostly classical and jazz. I use that as a reference point when I'm listening to recorded music. Analog LP's win out over digital nearly 100% of the time. The rare exception is usually an LP that comes from a digital source . Some of the latest 24/96 DAD and SACD stuff comes close to analog, but it still isn't there yet.

Oh, and if you listen to properly cleaned and cared for LP's there is no "hiss".

How can the latest 24/96 DAD and SACD stuff be worse than LP's?. The s/n ratio of SACD are much better.

Tests have shown that humans cant even tell the difference above 56Khz, so sampling errors arent a factor as they are in CD's.

Are you sure that its not just mental bias towards all digital media or a change in recording techniqes? I know alot of ancient recording gear used tube technology which has smoother response curves than transistors. What testing methods did you use?

"Follow the way of the DSP young grasshoper".

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:15 pm

It's not just about how high up people can tell the difference; you have to consider the fact that in reality, sounds of all frequencies are being made at once whenever there's music going on; such is that live performances do and likely always will sound better than even the most advanced sound equipment in existence, whether the platform is LP or CD, but let's think about why LP will have an advantage for a long, long time (until digital reaches a nearly infinite level of frequency range and resolution)...

Let's take, for example, a small string group playing Antonio Vivaldi's Four Seasons (among my own favorites). Each and every individual artist is playing a natural, living instrument of of natural materials like wood, horsehair etc. Every single instrument has its nuances, even two violins made by the same violin crafter in the same studio using wood off the same tree and varnish from the same can. Now, consider the size of a string group playing Four Seasons. With an analogue recording, there's a nearly infinite resolution; i.e. the sound of one violin will be recorded right in with the sound of the next violin, plus the viola, plus the next viola etc. The natural sound of the recording environment is preserved up to the limit of the LP's physical resolving capacity, which, being analogue, aond having to fit only 45 minutes onto a ~1 foot-wide platter, is pretty damn high!

When you go digital, you're using 1's and 0's to represent the entire group. Let's take a single person singing by themself, or just a single violinist. SACD or DVD-A should have sufficient ability to resolve the sound of a single noise source. Not consider the entire string group performing the Four Seasons. The 1's and 0's that would represent each instrument will now come into conflict with the 1's and 0's of each other instrument; why? Because there's a limited bandwidth with digital, even with SACD and DVD-Audio, I think that limit is just not suitable enough to handle the sound of reality.

Ralf makes a significant point in that LPs will tend to have that better feeling of imitating a live performance. My reasoning there outlines what he feels; it's not mere feeling, it's reality. This is why analogue is better than current digital technology and likely will for a long time (until storage capacity allows for such high resolution and frequency range, that is).

As you can see I personally believe that analogue is superior in recording capability as well (which is why LPs with digital engineering stages lose the benefit of true, pure-analogue LPs, again, as Ralf pointed out).

So why do I still prefer digital?

There's a simple two-fold reason. Firstly, because LP or CD, or SACD or DVD-Audio, none of the above, even when combined with the world's most advanced soudn system components, have yet to feel like a true live performance. Close? Sure--close enough that 99% of people in the world could not tell the difference (99% of people in the perfect listening room with the ultimate system while blindfolded--find me such a place!) Take away any part of that and you can't fool the person into thinking you just walked them into a live performance (blind fold them, take their hand, and walk them a good ways into a listening room). Because we're not going to achieve true live performance level sound, why not, in the interests of simply enjoying your music more (isn't that the real point of it, in the end? You don't listen to good recordings, you listen to good music!), listen to the music in the way that suits your own tastes more?

This is why Ralf prefers his LPs, while I prefer my digital; we're both quite fond of the STYLE of, "off-true-reality," sound that we've become accustomed to. I think he and I both appreciate a true live performance more than any recording; but in terms of reproduction, he prefers a warmer, smoother style while I prefer the more articulate, in-your-face sound of digital.

*Steps down from soapbox*

-Ed

EDIT: Fixed a major typo in there (had not instead of now; do it all the time), but there's likely more.

icancam · Post by **icancam** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:20 pm

Well, this very interesting dialogue regarding the merits and failings of digital and analogue recordings versus live music does seem a bit off the topic of a CPU heatsink. Perhaps one of the moderators can peel off some of the responses into another thread?

Apparently, one of the main contributing factors for the perceived "sterility" of digital sound are artifacts due to "jitter". Interestingly, the cure seems to involve the use of computer software and hard drives as covered in two articles at 6moons.com, an audio enthusiast site much enamored of tubes and LP's.

http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/eac/eac.html
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/vrs/vrs.html

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:31 pm

icancam, thank you SO MUCH for that link on the proper configuration of EAC; suddenly I realize that I've been doing it all wrong...

It's going to take me days to rerip all my CDs!

icancam · Post by **icancam** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:38 pm

No good deed goes unpunished?

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:40 pm

Well I just busted out some of our best recordings so I can try out this re-burn superior disc theory. I've got some Chesky as well as some stuff from the Baker's Dozen list...

Let's see how it goes!

icancam · Post by **icancam** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:42 pm

Looking forward to your conclusions with great interest.

mpteach · Post by **mpteach** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:37 pm

Edward Ng, the qaulity of the recorded sound depends on the resolution of the media, The maximum resolution of vinyl stops far short of the quantum world, there is no infinite. Ever compare a microfiche film of a newpaper to a high resolution scan? At some point both will become grainy. It makes sense that the difference would be in the playback or recording and some effect such as jitter would harshly color the sound.

I do work with 32 channel mixing boards, and i have to say that analoge boards are great for live music, but i wouldnt give up my digital when it comes to recording, I love presets and hate tape.

Also live music varies from the recorded thing because the backround noise, position of sound source and room acoustics are always vastyl different between the original evinronment and that of the listener, and the ear can tell the difference.

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:47 pm

True; there is no true infinite for anything, in true reality, but analogue is definitely way ahead; take your example; microfiche holds truly unbelievable detail in a tiny space. I liken the finest digital printing technologies available to be about as close to microfiche as digital is to analogue in that respect.

Tape has its own serious issues of course; would you pick digital tape over analogue?

Definitely agree on all the environmental issues. This ties in directly with why, as I said, if I can't get the real thing, might as well get my favorite version of the not quite real thing.

mpteach · Post by **mpteach** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:38 pm

Edward Ng wrote:True; there is no true infinite for anything, in true reality, but analogue is definitely way ahead; take your example; microfiche holds truly unbelievable detail in a tiny space. I liken the finest digital printing technologies available to be about as close to microfiche as digital is to analogue in that respect.

Tape has its own serious issues of course; would you pick digital tape over analogue?

Definitely agree on all the environmental issues. This ties in directly with why, as I said, if I can't get the real thing, might as well get my favorite version of the not quite real thing.

Microfiche is limited to the grainsize of the film which is pretty good, and standard paper prints are limited to the size of the paper grains and the ink absorbtion properties. The data density of microfiche does not compare to the data density of a modern hard drive. Using an electron microscope "printing technique" on a silicon chip you could make nanoscopic recordings or images and the digital would win(compare 16 bits to a 256 "analouge" atom ridge.

Its the quality of the recording and reproduction equipment/media and the type of erorrs introduced that make the difference, not the fact that recording is analog or digital in nature.
If you played a high quality digital recording from a hard drive with quality DAC and minimized jitter, there is a point where you cant tell the difference. I would like to see md5 hashes of disks, better jitter corection and better time domain production on the DAC's.

BTW Vinyl LP particles are finite in size and thus can cuase jitter too, though its not nearly as big of a factor as it is with modern cds.

mpteach · Post by **mpteach** » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:01 pm

The more i think about it, the more i realize that analog and digital recordings are the same animal.

Sound waves and thier analog recordings are a continous collection of particles that are variablly positioned at a specified distance from a refernce level. Digital recordings are logarithmic (base 2) versions of the specified distances.

EDIT: As long as it sounds good it doesnt really matter

EDIT 2: I have to view this as an end to a means (hearing and enjoying quality music that i would otherwise not be priviledged to hear live and on demand) and not a means to an end ( getting the pefect sound of the perfect song, of perfect people at the perfect time).

/end audio rant

jmke · Post by **jmke** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:33 am

are we still talking computer heatsinks here?

SilverBeard · Post by **SilverBeard** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:07 am

jmke wrote:are we still talking computer heatsinks here?

I'm not sure anymore! Perhaps we should start a new thread for the XP-120 discussion.

Edward Ng · Post by **Edward Ng** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:20 am

SilverBeard wrote:Perhaps we should start a new thread for the XP-120 discussion.

Nah.

sthayashi · Post by **sthayashi** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:39 am

Well, we are NOT going to have this music/sound discussion again I hope. It's been a while since I peered into this thread and I can believe I missed such a fun discussion. But again, I won't contribute until it's been pulled into a new thread

(MikeC, Ralf, et al, Can you split this thread and move all the audio related discussion to the new thread?)

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:34 pm

sthayashi wrote:Well, we are NOT going to have this music/sound discussion again I hope. It's been a while since I peered into this thread and I can believe I missed such a fun discussion. But again, I won't contribute until it's been pulled into a new thread

(MikeC, Ralf, et al, Can you split this thread and move all the audio related discussion to the new thread?)

Well, I'm not going to split it because I don't want to talk about it any more. We've done this topic in the past.

We're all big boys, let's just drop it and get back on topic.