new AEBS vs old AEBS in range

[logandzwon]

I have both. The old set to G + B and the new set to N only.

What I'm confussed about is that I have nearly the exact same range on both devices. Could my AEBS be defective?

 

[aristobrat]

I'm an awful doodler, but ...

I have an old UFO AEBS setup for B/G, and about 2 feet away from it, I have a new AEBS setup for 802.11n-only (using 5.0ghz)

Inside the house, the range of the two is about the same.

However, in the back yard, the only one I can pickup is the new 802.11n-only AEBS, but only in the area I've scribbled green.

To sum mine up, it does have better range, but not necessarily in all directions as I had expected it to.

 

[kolax]

Depends what obstacles are in the way too and anything that may cause interference.

You can turn interference robustness on for both your Mac and AEBS but that shortens the range. Things like microwaves, TV Aerials, mobile phones etc can have a big impact too.

 

[logandzwon]

I've relocated the devices to about 2 inches from each other. In iStumbler my old AEBS has a 5% better signal from 15 feet away with line of site. If I go into another room about 25 feet away, and threw a couple walls, I have 40% on the old 30% on the new.

I'm wondering if I have bum unit or they are blatently mis-informing the public with their "2x range".

 

[logandzwon]

Depends what obstacles are in the way too and anything that may cause interference.

You can turn interference robustness on for both your Mac and AEBS but that shortens the range. Things like microwaves, TV Aerials, mobile phones etc can have a big impact too.

Thanks for the suggestions, Interference robustness is off for everyone. microwaves only matter when they are on, there is no TV antenna inside the house, there are obviously mobile phones around, but they don't seem to cause much of an impact no matter where they are.

 

[kolax]

I'm wondering if I have bum unit or they are blatently mis-informing the public with their "2x range".

Only twice the range when you are using N.

 

[aristobrat]

In iStumbler my old AEBS has a 5% better signal from 15 feet away with line of site. If I go into another room about 25 feet away, and threw a couple walls, I have 40% on the old 30% on the new.

I'm wondering if I have bum unit or they are blatently mis-informing the public with their "2x range".

Inside my house, the signal strength is about the same. But there comes a point where the old one drops to 0 and the new one continues, although at a low rate.

Have you followed the signals to where you lose the B/G signal? At that point, do you get a N signal?

 

[logandzwon]

Inside my house, the signal strength is about the same. But there comes a point where the old one drops to 0 and the new one continues, although at a low rate.

Have you followed the signals to where you lose the B/G signal? At that point, do you get a N signal?

I lost the signal of the new AEBS about one whole room before I loose signal of the old one. Switching the old unit to 2.4, (instead of the 5 gig it was on,) has helped it to the point where it atlest works in said room, but it's still much weeker then the older unit.

 

[macleod199]

I've relocated the devices to about 2 inches from each other. In iStumbler my old AEBS has a 5% better signal from 15 feet away with line of site. If I go into another room about 25 feet away, and threw a couple walls, I have 40% on the old 30% on the new.

I'm wondering if I have bum unit or they are blatently mis-informing the public with their "2x range".

5.x GHz signals penetrate walls less well than 2.4 GHz signals. 900 MHz is better than both, which is why I'm miffed all the wireless phones moved up to 5.8 GHz in this pointless 'GHz race.' The advantages of moving to 5.x for computer networks is that you can use wider channels to send more data (which isn't necessary for phones - they should have stayed where they were), and that you have less interference, as others mentioned.

If you're worried about range, try putting your new base station to 2.4 GHz, and see if it improves. If you're seeing (and making use of) real-world speed improvements at 5, you're probably better of staying there.

Basically, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There's a reason the lower spectrum bands are so coveted, and the cell phone providers are chomping at the bit to kick TV stations out of the UHF band. In general, signals at a lower frequency travel further, but you're not going to be able to get a 40 MHz wide signal in the kHz band, obviously.

 

[logandzwon]

5.x GHz signals penetrate walls less well than 2.4 GHz signals. 900 MHz is better than both, which is why I'm miffed all the wireless phones moved up to 5.8 GHz in this pointless 'GHz race.' The advantages of moving to 5.x for computer networks is that you can use wider channels to send more data (which isn't necessary for phones - they should have stayed where they were), and that you have less interference, as others mentioned.

If you're worried about range, try putting your new base station to 2.4 GHz, and see if it improves. If you're seeing (and making use of) real-world speed improvements at 5, you're probably better of staying there.

Basically, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There's a reason the lower spectrum bands are so coveted, and the cell phone providers are chomping at the bit to kick TV stations out of the UHF band. In general, signals at a lower frequency travel further, but you're not going to be able to get a 40 MHz wide signal in the kHz band, obviously.

Smart man. Explained that well. At 2.4 the new and old are much closer. But the old still gets slightly better signal.