The truth about DDC's

OK, so it's time for the much hyped and anticipated results of my somewhat "extensive" testing of the various DDC's on the market and how they compare to the older DDC-2. There is even a surprise guest in the test results and the only reason I tested it was because I was genuinely curious about it.

Now, before I show the results, I'll go on the record and say that these results are not to be taken as gospel as the methods I employed are not the same as those used by Martinm210 or skinnee (or even Vapor IIRC) but, they are pretty decent and good enough to give a realistic idea of what you can expect. Now that I'm done with the disclaimer, lets get to the testing methods and then the results. :D

Testing methods:

For flow test, I used a Koolance INS-FM17 attached to CPU fan header on an old MoBo and read the results in bios. Results were rounded to the nearest .1 LPM.

For Pressure test, I used an old fuel pressure gauge that reads 0-15PSI (graduated by .2PSI). It was mounted via push-in fitting to a T and then to the res via a valve. The valve on the res was opened and closed several times to confirm the reading taken. Since the gauge is a bit old, I decided to add in the ± you'll see in the results as wiggle room even though the results were easily repeatable to within .1PSI.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/852...egaugewtee.jpg http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/994...augedetail.jpg

For total lift, I used the old tried and true method of tubing going straight up a wall and measuring the distance the water traveled from the end of the barb. Number's were rounded down to the nearest full inch to keep things a little simpler. I will admit that "me judging height by eye" = epic FAIL as the room I tested this in at work was only 24' and not the 30'+ I originally reported. :doh: Good thing I didn't need all of the 24'.;)

For RPM's, pumps were hooked up to a 3.5" Kaze Master and the most prevalent RPM was recorded with ± wiggle room. For those pumps that changed RPM's due to added restriction when the valve was closed during pressure testing, both a min and max number was recorded.

All the tests were repeated for both the 3.25 and DDC-2 with the Petra top for each respective pump. This was done to show the effect after market tops have on the pumps compared to the stock top. For the other models of DDC's not tested with this top, the results for the 3.25 "should" scale similarly as they would use the same top.

Now, for the results.

Stock Top

Pump__________Total head pressure (PSI)__________Total lift (Foot)__________Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's

3.1 (new PCB)__________5.4 ±.2____________________12' 2"__________________~7.3_____________3840 ±30

3.1 (old PCB)___________5.4 ±.2____________________12' 2"__________________~7.3_____________3900 ±30

3.2___________________6.8 ±.2____________________16' 1"__________________~8.4_____________4530 ±30

3.25__________________9.0 ±.2____________________21' 9"__________________~8.4____________4650-5340 ±30

DDC-2.________________9.8 ±.2____________________23' 4"__________________~8.4____________4530-5340 ±30

Koolance PMP-300._______3.9 ±.2_____________________9' 9"__________________~7.0____________4500-5640 ±30



Petra Top

Pump__________Total head pressure (PSI)__________Total lift (Foot)__________Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's


3.25__________________7.8 ±.2____________________19' 1"__________________~9.9____________4320-5220 ±30

DDC-2.________________8.2 ±.2____________________20' 10"________________~11.2____________4290-5430 ±30

As for the questions about the revised PCB and being able to do the solder mod, I really wish I knew more about electronics than I do. I pulled apart a new 3.1 and a 3.25 and the only differences I found were about 10/11 of the flat resistors. The micro controller is the same and I tried several different ways to get a number off the FETs but there was just too much conformal coating on them. I tried to scrape it off and the numbers disappeared as well. :( The following pics are for anyone out there that is more knowledgeable that may pick up on something that I didn't/couldn't.

(Click for larger images)
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6602/ddc31th.jpg http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5510/ddc325th.jpg

As for being able to mod the newer PCB, that's unfortunately still up in the air. Personally, I'm going to say it's not possible as these look to possibly be a simple mod away from being PWM controllable from things floating around in the rumor mill.


I tested the Koolance PMP-300 on a whim as I was a little bit curious about how it performed. While not as good as the "main" pumps such as the DDC or D5, it did exhibit qualities that would make it a nice little pump for a separate MOSFET or Chipset loop with a 80mm, 92mm rad or 120mm. It is reasonably quiet (on par to a MCP350/3.1) and as you can tell from the numbers, has more than enough oomph for a small load loop.



Oh. . .and skinnee, I win. :p: ;) :ROTF:

The DDC-2 is that old model they no longer make right?? Well, i am happy I bought those 3.25's now!! I wonder how much flow i will get with 3 3.25 pumps with the XSPC triple top!! :P

I'm confused? The mod tops reduced the head pressure, but yet increased the flow?

Phil

Thanks for the effort, those are compelling results. Makes me glad I swapped out my 3.2 for a 3.25 in my build.

Quote:

---

For those pumps that change RPM's, both a min and max number was recorded.

---

Can you explain why the DDC-2 and 3.25 have an RPM range while the other pumps don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

I'm confused? The mod tops reduced the head pressure, but yet increased the flow?

Phil

---

Pinch a garden hose. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kibbler

Can you explain why the DDC-2 and 3.25 have an RPM range while the other pumps don't?

---

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear about that (I'll fix that so it's more clear). As the restriction goes up, so does the RPM's. It has something to do with a RPM limiter in the micro controller on the 3.1's and 3.2's, regardless the RPM, they'll stay within a handful of RPM's of where they were set to run for the amps given. The DDC-2 and 3.25 don't have this limiter and it appears that it's the lack of the limiter is what allows them to really crank out the pressure. You can see this in a prior test I did.

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3607/file9751.mp4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BringerOdeath

The DDC-2 is that old model they no longer make right?? Well, i am happy I bought those 3.25's now!! I wonder how much flow i will get with 3 3.25 pumps with the XSPC triple top!! :P

---

Yep, the DDC-2 is no more. IIRC, nikhsub1 figured it takes 4 pumps to effectively double a single pump in a loop, so. . .you should get ~2/3 of that. . .give or take a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

I'm confused? The mod tops reduced the head pressure, but yet increased the flow?

Phil

---

:yepp:

Although, a couple tops do have a slight increase in max pressure over stock. Most tops however increase max flow rate and the pressure at max flow over the stock top as shown by Martinm210's testing. The one thing you have to remember though is that max pressure is at zero flow.

http://martin.skinneelabs.com/DDC32PumpTopTesting.html

I just have 1 question waterlogged, do you think one ddc3.1 is enough for a cou loop only. I bought two of those to make a 2 loop setup, first loop is xspc res top, ddc 3.1, hk cpu blobk of supreme hf (still not decided which one to get), hw labs gtx360. Second loop is xspc top, ddc3.1, gpu full cover block, hw labs 120 pro compact rad, mosfet block, swiftech 220mcr rad. Does the ddc3.1 can give enough head pressure for those loop ?

Thanks, Waterlogged. Appreciate the effort that went into doing this.

Sorry for my n00bishness, but this thread has me curious: Is the Swiftech MCP355 a DDC 3.2? If so, looks like I need to get a 3.25 :)

Thanks!

-TadZilla

im curious as to the difference you'd get with a ddc-3.25 vs a DDC-3.1 with a high restriction loop... ive got 5 blocks in mine and 3 of them are fairly restrictive... i wonder if id gain anything with a 3.25 over my current 3.2 due to the runaway rpm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philwong

I'm confused? The mod tops reduced the head pressure, but yet increased the flow?

---

Yes, this is the trade-off with the custom tops (the odd exception being the XSPC reservoir top and a couple other integrated-reservoir tops)... the trick is to go for the least drop in head pressure and the largest increase in mid-range flow. What really confuses most people is when you tell 'em that the max head/discharge numbers aren't very meaningful since the middle 50-65% of the performance curve is all that matters for most PC cooling systems.

Waterlogged: based on some of my old curves, you're looking at, what, about a 3psi drop across that flowmeter given the "max" flowrate numbers you were able to pull?

RoadconeTuning: The higher the pressure drop of the system, the closer the results are going to get between pump configurations (to the point where it really doesn't matter wether you're using a custom top or not...take a CPU/GPU/radiator loop with an AqX MP-1GPU, MP-05 SP LE CPU block, and a BIP, for example: you'd be looking at a flow difference of about 0.07GPM between a DDC-2 with top and without top, a difference of about 0.18GPM between a DDC-2 with top and a D5, and a difference of about 0.11GPM between a D5 and stock DDC-2).

so in reality it doesnt matter what we use...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoadconeTuning

so in reality it doesnt matter what we use...

---

Considering that the DDC-3.2 doesn't seem to benefit as much from custom tops as the old DDC-2 and it's less powerful overall, pretty much. It's one of the reasons why I never brought my DDCT-02 top project (a complete redesign to replace my DDCT-01 & DDCT-01s tops) to production after my performance analysis of the DDC-3.2 pump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Waterlogged: based on some of my old curves, you're looking at, what, about a 3psi drop across that flowmeter given the "max" flowrate numbers you were able to pull?

---

Wish I knew Alex. :shrug: I did things the hard way as I wanted the purest numbers possible, flow test only had the flow meter in the loop and pressure test only had the gauge in the loop. I suppose I could go back and do that test when I get a little more time. I also have another flow meter (INS-FM15) that I could toss in and check the drop in flow on both my meters as well. . .was something I was planning on doing anyway.

I wish you had included some current draw numbers. Looking at the discoloration around the 3.25 center tells you just how much hotter that thing gets over the 3.1. To me hotter = higher failure rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damha

I wish you had included some current draw numbers. Looking at the discoloration around the 3.25 center tells you just how much hotter that thing gets over the 3.1. To me hotter = higher failure rate.

---

I wouldn't put too much stock into the PCB discoloration on DDC's. Both of those pumps look exactly the same when I took them apart prior to testing for a quick inspection. I would have done draw number if the one DMM I have didn't blow it's 10A fuse about 2½ years ago. I've been unable to find a replacement locally and I'm not about to buy another $100 DMM when everything else works on mine, I simply can't afford it. The analog I have only goes to 250m which is useless for these pumps. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Considering that the DDC-3.2 doesn't seem to benefit as much from custom tops as the old DDC-2 and it's less powerful overall, pretty much. It's one of the reasons why I never brought my DDCT-02 top project (a complete redesign to replace my DDCT-01 & DDCT-01s tops) to production after my performance analysis of the DDC-3.2 pump.

---

they do make routing much easier

any chance of a retest to get the numbers for the 3.2 with top, as if there is a rev limiter it should perform differently, and mine stays at 4700 rpm with the ek v1 g3/8 top

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Considering that the DDC-3.2 doesn't seem to benefit as much from custom tops as the old DDC-2 and it's less powerful overall, pretty much. It's one of the reasons why I never brought my DDCT-02 top project (a complete redesign to replace my DDCT-01 & DDCT-01s tops) to production after my performance analysis of the DDC-3.2 pump.

---

NOW I know the Mystery of the missing DDCT-02!!! :shocked:

I never got around to asking you Petra.

Wow, that came sooner than I thought. Do you notice any more noise from the DDC 3.25 compared to the DDC 3.2, since it spins faster?

Good work WL!! :up:

I knew that PM I recently sent would have some sort of negative recourse. :ROTF: I am done with PQ, just need to finish up this MCR-Stack and will do "average" loop flow rates.

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

any chance of a retest to get the numbers for the 3.2 with top, as if there is a rev limiter it should perform differently, and mine stays at 4700 rpm with the ek v1 g3/8 top

---

Sure thing, the pressure, flow and RPM tests are no problem but I can't currently do the lift test ATM, that'd have to wait until April, which is the earliest I can get access to the same room and the time to do it. I can do those 3 tests, as well as the other testing for Petra this coming weekend. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain H.N.

Wow, that came sooner than I thought. Do you notice any more noise from the DDC 3.25 compared to the DDC 3.2, since it spins faster?

---

No, not really...there's a change in pitch similar to what's in the video link above, it's kind of subtle in the video but you can hear it. If anything, I think it may actually get a little quieter as the restriction goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skinnee

Good work WL!! :up:

I knew that PM I recently sent would have some sort of negative recourse. :ROTF: I am done with PQ, just need to finish up this MCR-Stack and will do "average" loop flow rates.

:toast:

---

Thanks skinnee :up:

:ROTF: :D :p:

Looking forward to those results. :yepp:

Thanks for your effort WL...! :up:

Thx for doing the testing WL and looking forward to skinnees full on evaluation!! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

I wouldn't put too much stock into the PCB discoloration on DDC's. Both of those pumps look exactly the same when I took them apart prior to testing for a quick inspection. I would have done draw number if the one DMM I have didn't blow it's 10A fuse about 2½ years ago. I've been unable to find a replacement locally and I'm not about to buy another $100 DMM when everything else works on mine, I simply can't afford it. The analog I have only goes to 250m which is useless for these pumps. :(

---

thanks for the testing

as for your fuse, see if there's a grainger around you, I've had to replace a few fuses in DMM's and they've always had what I needed

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/start.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Sure thing, the pressure, flow and RPM tests are no problem but I can't currently do the lift test ATM, that'd have to wait until April, which is the earliest I can get access to the same room and the time to do it. I can do those 3 tests, as well as the other testing for Petra this coming weekend. :up:

---

woot thats all i was interested in

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utnorris

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

---

Afaik, yes. DDC 3.1 = MCP350 = DDC 1(R/T); DDC 3.2 = MCP355 = DDC 1+(R/T)

Nice job on the testing!

Thanks everyone. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nysulli

thanks for the testing

as for your fuse, see if there's a grainger around you, I've had to replace a few fuses in DMM's and they've always had what I needed

http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/wwg/start.shtml

---

Already looked. :( I do know of a few places I can get some but it's really hard for me to break out the CC for a $4-6 internet purchase from I place I've never ordered from before. :shakes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

woot thats all i was interested in

---

Cool beans then. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utnorris

Quick question, is the DDC1 the same thing as a MCP350? There is a guy selling them and he list them as the same as the MCP350.

---

There are a couple versions of DDC 1's out there as Captain H.N. has partially stated. There is also the original DDC 1 which has a black impeller (which was not tested as I don't have one of those). IIRC, they are the weakest of all DDC's. The complete run down of all DDC's AFAIK is

DDC 1:
Black impeller (original AKA MCP350)
Blue impeller (AKA-3.1, MCP350)

DDC 1+:
red (brown or orange impeller depending on your color perception ;)) (original AKA DDC 2)
Blue Impeller (DDC 3.2)

DDC 3.25:
Blue (or blue top w/red/brown/orange bottom) impeller (original)

Yes, that's accurate, 3.25 is the only number on these pumps, even on the Laing sticker so it seems they are finally stepping away from the "DDC 1/DDC 1+" naming.:clap::cheer:
Not sure where the 3.15 version stands in the whole mess because I don't think we've seen any yet.

Actually, it's interesting to compare the old DDC-1's to the DDC-3.1's that replaced 'em... the DDC-1 produces produces more head pressure and has a stronger "first half" curve, whereas the DDC-3.1 lags behind until the second half of its curve (where it has a very slight performance advantage).

Swiftech has some decent curves comparing the two that they put together after I brought the issue to their attention (link, scroll down)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Waterlogged: based on some of my old curves, you're looking at, what, about a 3psi drop across that flowmeter given the "max" flowrate numbers you were able to pull?

---

Alex, believe it or not, according to my pressure gauge...I only get ~1 ±.2psi with the flow meter @ full flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

they do make routing much easier

any chance of a retest to get the numbers for the 3.2 with top, as if there is a rev limiter it should perform differently, and mine stays at 4700 rpm with the ek v1 g3/8 top

---

Pump________Total head pressure (PSI)_______Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's

3.2______________6.2 ±.2____________________~11.2_____________4470 ±30 (with a very small spike to 4530-4560 when full restriction was applied)

Your higher RPM's may be due to a higher amp rail PSU than what my PSU is. When I did the video I linked earlier in the topic...I had used a 550W Antec NeoHE with a bad 5V rail, I later tested the 3.2 with a much lower watt PSU (220W Shuttle unit) and the RPM's dropped by 1k.




I also tried to test my INS-FM15 (predecessor to the INS-FM16) as well but I was forced to toss all those numbers out. It appears the damn thing is borked as it doesn't want to read flow higher than 9999 mL/m for some reason, it just reverts back to 1000+, and tops out @ something like 1054. The specs I have that came with it show .5-15 LPM (similar to the FM17) so even if I'm supposed to add 1054 to 9999, it still doesn't = 15 LPM. :shrug:

i'm going to drag this thread back up as i just stumbled across it.

Nice job Water. It seems that 3.25 really is a hot rod isn't it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

Alex, believe it or not, according to my pressure gauge...I only get ~1 ±.2psi with the flow meter @ full flow.


Pump________Total head pressure (PSI)_______Max Flow (l/m)__________RPM's

3.2______________6.2 ±.2____________________~11.2_____________4470 ±30 (with a very small spike to 4530-4560 when full restriction was applied)

Your higher RPM's may be due to a higher amp rail PSU than what my PSU is. When I did the video I linked earlier in the topic...I had used a 550W Antec NeoHE with a bad 5V rail, I later tested the 3.2 with a much lower watt PSU (220W Shuttle unit) and the RPM's dropped by 1k....

---

i have a 750tx, and when i had just a pa120.1 and a dtekv2 it was up there now with an mcw60 added its a 4050-4100

thx for doing the test, even though i missed it for a month and a half

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterlogged

(Click for larger images)
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6602/ddc31th.jpg http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5510/ddc325th.jpg

As for being able to mod the newer PCB, that's unfortunately still up in the air. Personally, I'm going to say it's not possible as these look to possibly be a simple mod away from being PWM controllable from things floating around in the rumor mill.


:

---

and chip IC2 are difference numbered
Some of resistors are in difference size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor

component CE1 has diff numbers on bottom 841 and 913

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

Actually, it's interesting to compare the old DDC-1's to the DDC-3.1's that replaced 'em... the DDC-1 produces produces more head pressure and has a stronger "first half" curve, whereas the DDC-3.1 lags behind until the second half of its curve (where it has a very slight performance advantage).

Swiftech has some decent curves comparing the two that they put together after I brought the issue to their attention (link, scroll down)

---

\
It looks like they are equal at about 225 lph, or 1 gpm... so as long as you manage to keep your loop at 1gpm or more, you'll get better pressure.

A somewhat worthy compromise don't you think?
Or am I misinterpreting that graph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avddreamr

\
It looks like they are equal at about 225 lph, or 1 gpm... so as long as you manage to keep your loop at 1gpm or more, you'll get better pressure.

A somewhat worthy compromise don't you think?
Or am I misinterpreting that graph.

---

I've already faceplamed one over pressure-related comments today...

A better way of putting it would be as follows:

If the pressure drop curve of your entire watercooling system were "low enough" to cause a DDC-3.1 to operate at or in excess of 1GPM, then the DDC-3.1 would offer slightly better flow than the DDC-1 due to its performance curve being stronger past that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zanzabar

even though i missed it for a month and a half

---

Glad I necroed it then, seems i wasn't only one that missed it. :)

Ive heard there is a new version coming out Very soon that PWR so we can adjust the speed

Interestingly, I recently bought one (well two actually Swifty MCP 355) and when changing the top I noticed a label on the PCB that said "PWM". Other than that, there is nothing out of the ordinary about it other than it is not reporting RPM's or my Aquaero is not reading it properly. I've a second in the GPU loop that did not say this on the PCB and it's reporting RPM's just fine. I bought it at the same time and the serial numbers and manufactuer dates are pretty close but they appear to be completely different models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petra

I've already faceplamed one over pressure-related comments today...

A better way of putting it would be as follows:

If the pressure drop curve of your entire watercooling system were "low enough" to cause a DDC-3.1 to operate at or in excess of 1GPM, then the DDC-3.1 would offer slightly better flow than the DDC-1 due to its performance curve being stronger past that point.

---

Well, am I to interpret that you prefer the older design? Now, I acknowledge that you know far more about the ddc pumps than I will ever know. And in fact I'm quite happy that this might prove an op. to pick your brain.

When lang revised their ddc-1, and ddc 2, into the 3.1, and 3.2 models, they both seem to have lost some psi, the 3.2 significantly. I have two ddc2s, and I'm waiting on a 3.1 that should arrive today or on monday. What do you feel where the design advantages when they elected to do the revisions in such a fashion?

Generally, i think the goal is to keep it at or above 1gpm. Did you feel that you got better performance out of the ddc 1, using your top for instance?
In my case, i noticed that I had to run the ddc2 at maybe 50 percent, to gain an acceptable noise profile. So I am not running my pumps in their optimum range, and the extra pumping power is lost on my low resistance loop. (fuzion v2, xspc rx360, danger den ion g92, ek nforce rev 1.1) So if someone was going to use a ddc 3.1 in a low resistance loop, wouldn't they stand to benefit? Or is that not representative of most of the people who would buy the 3.1, and they would of been better served by the original design? Would any of these conclusion apply to the design shift from the ddc 2-> 3.2 or even the 3.25?

Your thoughts, will be greatly appreciated . I apologize if you experience a face palm moment due to my questions

Well I have had my 2 DDC-2's running 24/7 for almost 4 years now... not 1 issue to report other than no issue :D

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=101005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avddreamr

Well, am I to interpret that you prefer the older design?

---

There was no inkling of preference in the statement that I made, it was merely a statement of fact based on the PQ curves provided by Swiftech.

Quote:

---

When lang revised their ddc-1, and ddc 2, into the 3.1, and 3.2 models, they both seem to have lost some psi, the 3.2 significantly. I have two ddc2s, and I'm waiting on a 3.1 that should arrive today or on monday. What do you feel where the design advantages when they elected to do the revisions in such a fashion?

---

Most of the advantage in the redesign was Laing's since they only had to produce one pump instead of two--the original DDC-3.1 and 3.2 are identical, save one solder pad bridge which acts as a toggle between modes. Obviously, this approach would increase the profitability of the pumps by lowering production costs. There were a couple changes which benefited the end-user, though, like a substantially softened startup sequence (no more 4A startup spike) and improved reliability (about 1 in 20 DDC-2's that we sold ended up failing).

Quote:

---

Generally, i think the goal is to keep it at or above 1gpm. Did you feel that you got better performance out of the ddc 1, using your top for instance? In my case, i noticed that I had to run the ddc2 at maybe 50 percent, to gain an acceptable noise profile. So I am not running my pumps in their optimum range, and the extra pumping power is lost on my low resistance loop. (fuzion v2, xspc rx360, danger den ion g92, ek nforce rev 1.1) So if someone was going to use a ddc 3.1 in a low resistance loop, wouldn't they stand to benefit? Or is that not representative of most of the people who would buy the 3.1, and they would of been better served by the original design? Would any of these conclusion apply to the design shift from the ddc 2-> 3.2 or even the 3.25?

---

The overall performance difference between the DDC-1 and DDC-3.1 is pretty small, to the point where I'd say it doesn't matter. The DDC-2, however, offers higher flowrates than the DDC-3.2 across its entire operational range at the expense of some reliability and slightly higher power consumption. Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to experiment with the DDC-3.25 just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikhsub1

Well I have had my 2 DDC-2's running 24/7 for almost 4 years now... not 1 issue to report other than no issue :D

---

I still have working DDC-2's as well, Scott... but that doesn't seem to make people feel better about the boxes of DDC-2's I had to RMA back to Swiftech :rolleyes: