Wireless Range - Thread repost

[thiggins]

I accidentally deleted this thread. Reposting since it had some good info. Sorry for the problem.

 

[thiggins]

Posted by Ben McElvany

Will all AC1900 routers ranges be better than AC1750 routers? I thought those numbers were for throughput but from reading reviews it seems as though the range is always better the higher the AC number is. My primary issue with my next router is RANGE. Is there a way to compare ranges between router types on this website (ac1750 and ac1900) or does the answer to my first question render this question moot)?

I'm comparing: R6400, r6900-Costco (assuming its range specs are same as r7000 and it's $30 cheaper than r7000 right now) to the Archer C9 and the C8 (much better price). As far as crazy throughput speeds go, I doubt I need them as I've been dealing with 10-20 mbps speeds I think so even going to 100mbps will be great!

But I very much am concerned about range, and it appears to me that I would be mostly concerned with "n" which correct me if I wrong please only uses the 2.4GHz band (5GHz is only used by "ac" right?) I'm pretty sure my current cell phone (certainly the next one will) uses "ac" so I want that spec in my router but as far as speeds go I'm really only concerned about my A/V streamers which in reality only need 25mbps at absolute max.

In short, only really looking at the R7000 because "it is so much better" is the impression I get from all reviews and is ranked #1 where the r6400 is #5 compared to the C8 in the range department. My thinking with the C9 is it's only $15 more on Amazon right now than the C8 and is the SAME is the r6400 at $129.00.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated, thanks.

 

[thiggins]

Posted by L&LD

A few observations.

AC1750 routers are generally based on older designs and hardware than AC1900 class routers. That is why the latter are deemed better in almost every aspect.

The class of the router doesn't have much to do with the expected range though. As an extreme example; the old G class routers had the best range (but horrible, in today's ISP speed capabilities, throughput).

A modern example is the AC1200 class RT-AC56U which has the base hardware of an AC1900 class device (RT-AC68U, when first introduced), less an antennae (and the fact that they're internal). But that doesn't seem to affect the range that much with the right firmware.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/asuswrt-merlin-378-55-3_hgg-final-mod.26524/page-2#post-199549


In my experience, buying a major network component like a wireless router for the level you are at now is a little shortsighted. Buy what you can afford, but buy at a level higher than where you're at today.

All the router's you're referencing in your post are not on my list (for myself or my customers).

If you want a wireless router that has the best chance of being supported a few years from now (with security fixes and where possible, new features too), Asus is the only game in town. And by town, I mean the whole global village we all live in.

 

[thiggins]

Posted by L&LD

I found an additional link that may be helpful too.

http://www.snbforums.com/threads/fork-380-57-hgg-final.29548/page-23#post-237427


As you can see, the firmware is what drives the performance. Not the router hardware (on it's own).

 

[thiggins]

Posted by pete y testing

In short, only really looking at the R7000 because "it is so much better" is the impression I get from all reviews and is ranked #1 where the r6400 is #5 compared to the C8 in the range department. My thinking with the C9 is it's only $15 more on Amazon right now than the C8 and is the SAME is the r6400 at $129.00.

what you need to understand is yes wireless AC routers in general have better coverage than the older wireless N but we have come to a point where coverage and thus range are restricted not by the hardware but by the rules governing transmission power output eg max eirp , every country has laws regarding this and it is illegal to go above them ,

so we have seen the last of the great increase in coverage wifi wise and if you are struggling to get adequate coverage its prob time to consider multiple wireless access points connected back to a router via ethernet

so yes the netgear is better ranked but the margin coverage wise is not as huge as you seem to think it is , esp on 5 gig and in real world conditions

results below are in MB/s throughput

at 25 meters through a few walls on 5 gig

tp link archer c9 read 20.5 write 15.8 sync 175M

netgear r7000 read 21.0 write 17.4 sync 234M

at 25 meter through a few walls on 2.4 gig

tp link archer c9 read 8.5 write 8.7 sync 216M

netgear r7000 read 13.2 write 11.9 sync 270M

so in reality you are looking at quite small increases but that does make a difference to ranking of the devices when it comes to who is on top

if you want great wifi coverage throughout a big house or multi story dwelling its time to move on from the desire to have it all come from a single transmission point but rather consider multiple devices situated so each area has great signal conditions without too much overlap

see

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=7D5C...1a0742!812&parId=7d5cb240be1a0742!144&o=OneUp

thie above is my floor plan

location A is where the above tests where done to location E

even i now run a second wireless AC router at location D that give far better signal to that end of the house

to see a bigger list of tested devices see the link below

wireless AC device coverage comparison
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2384995

which includes dlink and asus all compared to each other coverage and throughput wise in a domestic real world environment

 

[thiggins]

Posted by me

Are all AC1900 going to outperform all AC1750 or could it be the r6400 has a better range than the C9. There is no way to compare this on the website, unless I am mistaken.

Go to the Router Charts, choose 2.4 GHz up or downlink profile and select a high attenuation value using the selector next to the benchmark name, like so.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/bar/117-2_4-ghz-profile-dn?see=P_54

For 5 GHz, just select the 5 GHz up or downlink profile benchmark, but start at a lower attenuation, usually 36dB
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/bar/119-5-ghz-profile-dn?see=P_36

These give you throughput at a specific signal level, which is an indicator of range.

 

[Ben McElvany]

I accidentally deleted this thread. Reposting since it had some good info. Sorry for the problem.

Thank you for reposting...I was trying to reply and then, "where did it go?"

Your links to the router charts are great, give me exactly what I was looking for. Thank you

Ben

 

[Ben McElvany]

Posted by pete y testing

what you need to understand is yes wireless AC routers in general have better coverage than the older wireless N but we have come to a point where coverage and thus range are restricted not by the hardware but by the rules governing transmission power output eg max eirp , every country has laws regarding this and it is illegal to go above them ,

so we have seen the last of the great increase in coverage wifi wise and if you are struggling to get adequate coverage its prob time to consider multiple wireless access points connected back to a router via ethernet

so yes the netgear is better ranked but the margin coverage wise is not as huge as you seem to think it is , esp on 5 gig and in real world conditions

results below are in MB/s throughput

at 25 meters through a few walls on 5 gig

tp link archer c9 read 20.5 write 15.8 sync 175M

netgear r7000 read 21.0 write 17.4 sync 234M

at 25 meter through a few walls on 2.4 gig

tp link archer c9 read 8.5 write 8.7 sync 216M

netgear r7000 read 13.2 write 11.9 sync 270M

so in reality you are looking at quite small increases but that does make a difference to ranking of the devices when it comes to who is on top

if you want great wifi coverage throughout a big house or multi story dwelling its time to move on from the desire to have it all come from a single transmission point but rather consider multiple devices situated so each area has great signal conditions without too much overlap

see

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=7D5C...1a0742!812&parId=7d5cb240be1a0742!144&o=OneUp

thie above is my floor plan

location A is where the above tests where done to location E

even i now run a second wireless AC router at location D that give far better signal to that end of the house

to see a bigger list of tested devices see the link below

wireless AC device coverage comparison
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2384995

which includes dlink and asus all compared to each other coverage and throughput wise in a domestic real world environment

Thanks for this reply, very helpful to me indeed. Your floormap is great thank you. I think my house is about half the size of your image, (so deck plus ABC and kitchen) with 2 floors (above ground) and a finished basement. Router location is on ground floor probably right where location A is. Max distance from that point to anywhere inside house where signal would be needed is probably 25-35 feet (much less than your 83 feet).

So, based on your info I probably only need one router and the question now is which one and the answer to that is probably: almost any. But to properly narrow down my search I have another question about range and antennas.

Generally, it seems the bigger more expensive routers have more antennae. If that doesn't really increase the range (much) are they there then just to support more speed, or max speed for many more concurrent streams (multiple devices using at once?) For example: a coffee shop with 35 people using their phones? Possibly at Christmas time I will have 5 people using the WiFi at once but other than that (my kids are 0 and 3 so by the time they'll be chewing up the WiFi it'll be new router time anyways) we might have two or three devices using WiFi simultaneously. If someone is streaming a movie thru WiFi I certainly cannot see us streaming more than two movies at the same time. For major download events I use my wired computer.

Lastly, I probably fall in the category of someone who is fed up with Comcast's (rented Arris TG862G) router performance so am way over-reacting about the range issue and practically any new router I get will be much much better and I will be happy. With that said and the fact that if I can get anywhere near the numbers you reported for either of those devices at 25 meters (I'd probably be happy with 50% of those numbers), does it still make sense to pay a little more for the AC1900 versus an AC1750 or even an ac1200? Other than range and speed are there any other benefits of AC1900 versus the "lesser" classes or would they just be model specific features that might not appear in the lesser classes like Qos and beamforming?

Per L&LD (above post) do you also like ASUS (which for me would probably be the RT-ac66 because of price) or is the "cheaper" Archer series (C9) probably more than adequate? (They do support support dd-wrt I think, or OpenWRT (are they the same thing) which is the only other option I might want which the r6400 doesn't do unless I'm mistaken.

 

[pete y testing]

(so deck plus ABC and kitchen) with 2 floors (above ground) and a finished basement. Router location is on ground floor probably right where location A is. Max distance from that point to anywhere inside house where signal would be needed is probably 25-35 feet (much less than your 83 feet).

but here is your issue wifi works best in the horizontal plain , eg across that first floor , the signal however will struggle on the other floors because of this although beamforming does help with this these days , but its recommended for multi story dwellings that you run an access point per floor to get the best coverage per floor

think of it this way slice your house up floor by floor and then stack the floors next to each other on one level , your wireless coverage is prob about the same as mine if you look at it this way

So, based on your info I probably only need one router and the question now is which one and the answer to that is probably: almost any.

yes you could start of with just 1 wireless AC router and see how it goes and it certainly depends on usage requirements on the other floors with regards to throughput and speed but here is your issue , if you go big with the first and it doesnt give you what you wanted then you would have been better of going smaller but using multiple ap on the different floors and achieving a better over all result

If that doesn't really increase the range (much) are they there then just to support more speed,

more throughput with the matching wireless client

or max speed for many more concurrent streams (multiple devices using at once?)

with most current routers we are still limited to the overall max throughput the wireless will allow and that is shared by all devices connected to the router and that share decreases the more clients that are connected as in each gets a smaller slice of the pie this is whats called SU-mimo

we are now seeing routers come out with whats called MU-mimo which changes thing but its in early stages of development , do a search for MU-mimo if you are interested in learning more

If someone is streaming a movie thru WiFi I certainly cannot see us streaming more than two movies at the same time. For major download events I use my wired computer.

dont forget your internet speed maybe the limiting factor if both streaming and downloading at the same time

does it still make sense to pay a little more for the AC1900 versus an AC1750 or even an ac1200?

i would prob still suggest you start with a 1900ac class router and see how it performs and go from there , the asus rt-ac68u is pretty much the best firmware wise , the tp link archer C9 performs just as good asthe rt-ac68u wireless performance wise but some here have issues with its coding and security there of which may or may not concern you to any great degree , but you might as well get the asus rt-ac68u and see how that wifi performance goes

pete

 

[Ben McElvany]

Again, very helpful, Thank you.

i would prob still suggest you start with a 1900ac class router and see how it performs and go from there , the asus rt-ac68u is pretty much the best firmware wise , the tp link archer C9 performs just as good asthe rt-ac68u wireless performance wise but some here have issues with its coding and security there of which may or may not concern you to any great degree , but you might as well get the asus rt-ac68u and see how that wifi performance goes

I agree, I think that is how I will start.

I forgot that all the basement equipment (video game systems, my Hi-Res BD quality media streamer (WDTV) and desktop computers) are wired via ethernet because I have an 8-port switch so the WiFi signal there doesn't really matter. The media streamer on the 2nd floor is located directly above where the router will be. Though it will be through the floor it may be 10 feet away, but I think probably more like 7 to 8 so hopefully that'll work well. All laptop computer use and most cell phone use is on the ground floor where the router will be located.

dont forget your internet speed maybe the limiting factor if both streaming and downloading at the same time

I haven't...In our case, movie streaming is not thru amazon, netflix or the internet, but my personal movie and tv collection ripped to mkv stored on my (very old) media server computer using ps3 media server via an ethernet cord to router.

Last question I promise
If getting multiple devices like you mention for multiple floors, spaces, etc. Does it make any difference if you get different types or classes of routers (an RT-ac68w, r6400 and an archer c5)? Or is it always best to get pairs (or three or more) of identical devices...will they work together better than devices that are "strangers"?

 

[TonyH]

i would prob still suggest you start with a 1900ac class router and see how it performs and go from there , the asus rt-ac68u is pretty much the best firmware wise , the tp link archer C9 performs just as good asthe rt-ac68u wireless performance wise but some here have issues with its coding and security there of which may or may not concern you to any great degree , but you might as well get the asus rt-ac68u and see how that wifi performance goes

pete

Another most important thing is the location of the router in the premise. I have a router on top floor
loft in a 2 story house with developed basement. I have desk tops, laptops, iPADs on every floor. Size of
house is ~2600 sq. ft. If I run ookla speed test on desktop WiFi connection sitting near the router, I get full speed my ISP gives, little more than 50/5. If I go down stairs to basement far corner where our recording studio is, I can get same test result on an audio work station. On the main floor family room where our HTPC is located test result is pretty well same. So far I don't need AP or repeater to cover my whole house with one router. If I need to work on any family vehicles in the garage, I take laptop there and WiFi connection is good enough to do what I need to do there. Again, Location, location...!

 

[Ben McElvany]

Another most important thing is the location of the router in the premise. I have a router on top floor
loft in a 2 story house with developed basement. I have desk tops, laptops, iPADs on every floor. Size of
house is ~2600 sq. ft. If I run ookla speed test on desktop WiFi connection sitting near the router, I get full speed my ISP gives, little more than 50/5. If I go down stairs to basement far corner where our recording studio is, I can get same test result on an audio work station. On the main floor family room where our HTPC is located test result is pretty well same. So far I don't need AP or repeater to cover my whole house with one router. If I need to work on any family vehicles in the garage, I take laptop there and WiFi connection is good enough to do what I need to do there. Again, Location, location...!

That's actually why I put my router where it currently is, it's basically at the most centrally located spot in my house. However, I never even thought of putting it upstairs. I figured having the least possible distance (straight line distance in any direction) was the best option for router location. At that spot in my house the signal only has to go through one floor to get anywhere versus having to go through two floors if it was upstairs. Do routers work better in a downward vertical direction than up?

And with that said, I know some routers antennae are movable. Some bend at 45° or rotate and I'm pretty sure I read on here somewhere that for example the r7000 works best if the antenna are at a 45° angle. Will/can rotating, bending antennas affect signal quality and can you make it better for a specific location, like above or below or are they truly omnidirectional?

 

[pete y testing]

Or is it always best to get pairs (or three or more) of identical devices...will they work together better than devices that are "strangers"?

its preferred that you use the same class but its not critical that they be the same make and model

 

[pete y testing]

That's actually why I put my router where it currently is, it's basically at the most centrally located spot in my house. However, I never even thought of putting it upstairs. I figured having the least possible distance (straight line distance in any direction) was the best option for router location. At that spot in my house the signal only has to go through one floor to get anywhere versus having to go through two floors if it was upstairs.

see

thats how an antenna radiates


so above and below the antenna is the worst place and is why wifi works best in a horizontal plain

 

[Ben McElvany]

see

thats how an antenna radiates


so above and below the antenna is the worst place and is why wifi works best in a horizontal plain

In that image, is the z-axis essentially the location and direction of the antenna, or is the image in relation to the whole router itself? Meaning, the feet of the router are on a flat level surface. If the z-axis is the location and direction of the antenna itself and you get a unit with more than one antenna, will bending one or more of them at different angles in relation to the others change that image.

So if you have three antennas, and one is straight up and down (0°) z-axis, and the other two are at 45 degrees different than #1, so -45° and +45° or maybe more extreme, -60° and +60°, won't that almost make a sphere of influence versus the horizontal Homer Simpson sort of influence?

Also in my case then, I guess I should move the router to another ground floor room changing the angle of the router to media streamer signal from 0° to something like 60-70°

 

[pete y testing]

In that image, is the z-axis essentially the location and direction of the antenna,

correct

So if you have three antennas, and one is straight up and down (0°) z-axis, and the other two are at 45 degrees different than #1, so -45° and +45° or maybe more extreme, -60° and +60°, won't that almost make a sphere of influence versus the horizontal Homer Simpson sort of influence?

it can help but then the mx throughput will be reduce as it requires 3 stream to get the best throughput , its a sacrifice to have the antennas angled this way but its a solution that may help

again nothing would be better than multiple wireless access points , eg pne p
per floor

 

[stevech]

Tilting helps in a two story house if the upstairs location directly above the router's antenna has a too weak signal. But tilting the antenna is very marginally useful in general. Too few dB difference.

 

[Ben McElvany]

correct



it can help but then the mx throughput will be reduce as it requires 3 stream to get the best throughput , its a sacrifice to have the antennas angled this way but its a solution that may help

again nothing would be better than multiple wireless access points , eg pne p
per floor

One more question then, instead of two or more routers connected via wired ethernet per floor or location, what about a wireless bridge specifically for the one device I have in a given floor or location? As far as I understand, bridges have no speed penalty like extenders/repeaters as long as they are ethernet connected to the device.

The only reason I ask this question is because of price. Are there quality bridges (only need to connect to one wired device) out there for under $40-50 (even two would still be cheaper than another ac1900 router) or are the best/most appropriate bridges just additional WiFi routers in the first place?

If yes any recommendations?

I did find the "tools" section on the main website and it is making me realize I might have my nomenclature wrong. What is the specific name for what I am looking for (connect to router via WiFi and it will then transfer that signal to a device via ethernet)? Adapter, bridge?

I did go ahead and buy a single "amazon" RT-ac68a after researching that it is indeed the same as the u.

 

[stevech]

access point, not bridge

 

[pete y testing]

(connect to router via WiFi and it will then transfer that signal to a device via ethernet)? Adapter, bridge?

yup this is called client bridge or media bridge but its limited to how good the wifi signal is at that location

you have no need for a bridge as such as you have ethernet installed and you just add ether a wireless access point or wireless router in AP mode to the ethernet on each floor

sure there are cheaper access points , are they any good coverage wise

I did go ahead and buy a single "amazon" RT-ac68a after researching that it is indeed the same as the u.

then see how it goes in location and coverage wise and get another if needed