Just my experience, including the 4s and 6. I am not going to get into an argument with you. It is just my own personal experience, living in a weak signal area and testing a large number of devices.
What we do know is that commercial interests are determined to keep us in the dark.
And historically smartphones sacrifice signal quality in certain wavelengths so that many people end up buying the most unsuited smartphone for their network.
I do not have time to search but I bet one of those Swedish or Danish sites still publish real data aimed at helping the consumer.
What we do know is that commercial interests are determined to keep us in the dark.
And historically smartphones sacrifice signal quality in certain wavelengths so that many people end up buying the most unsuited smartphone for their network.
I do not have time to search but I bet one of those Swedish or Danish sites still publish real data aimed at helping the consumer.
Posted 14-05-2015, 20:50
This thread is just mad, you've quoted and answered an even older post, well done , oh necromancer...
what we need is an independent lab with an anechoic chamber and GSM/UMTS/LTE test equipment at each frequency to publish an independent report. Not even Anandtech has the money for this :-/ The handset vendors have these but they keep the results to themselves for commercial reasons.
So all other data is subjective, as there are too many variables. Network frequency, distance to mast, mast load, weather impact, building construction etc. Manufacturing tolerance (yes, I've seen this on CB radio equipment in the 80s).
Any opinions on what the Samsung Galaxy S7 is like for hanging onto signal? I briefly had an S6 Edge, and one of the reasons I changed was that the signal was so bad compared to previous phones - it would lose 4G regularly and keep dropping down to 2G in places I'd never had that happen before (EE).
Now got a Z5, and as a previous poster said, it hangs on to signal very well.
Typical of Samsung phones... My Samsung Galaxy S4 does this as well, though the S4 likes to hang on to 4G, then drop straight to 2G (rather than use 3G, which is better for data). Even the XDA Developer guys haven't managed to make a LTE/WCDMA option, which would be the solution.
It's a shame that Samsung phones do this, as (apart from that) they are excellent phones which I would highly recommend.
If and when my S4 gives up the ghost, I might have to look at other manufacturers, in the hope of clinging to the last drop of 3G/4G signal.
That old one is listed in 2G order, though the Xperia Z, in 2nd place was a great all round phone.
There is no mention of 4G, but what you can see is that many will likely be less able to drop down to 2G, in that they will at times fail to get a decent 2G signal too.
In an ideal world, you wouldn't just want to force to 3G/4G but be able to adjust the thresholds so you can keep 2G for fallback as a last resort (but mean you don't get no signal at all).
One thing I like about Huawei phones (including the Nexus 6P) is they seem to like 4G and not dropping down and clinging on to 2G for dear life.
The headlines zoomed into the fact that the iPhone 6S is near the bottom, but again, it ignores data, 3G and 4G.
Tests were done for a consumer program called Cash.
(note that is slightly older than the headlines, the 6S now moving to 30th place being worse than the 6, thus the degradation creating the headlines)
Typical of Samsung phones... My Samsung Galaxy S4 does this as well, though the S4 likes to hang on to 4G, then drop straight to 2G (rather than use 3G, which is better for data). Even the XDA Developer guys haven't managed to make a LTE/WCDMA option, which would be the solution.
It's a shame that Samsung phones do this, as (apart from that) they are excellent phones which I would highly recommend...
You S4 probably fails to get a good enough 2G signal, whereas the S5 and S6 will more regularly move to 2G.
And the need to move to 2G might be exasperated by low quality 4G etc.
At least someone is campaigning for better labelling, though it is plainly obvious some people end up buying phones unfit for their particular purpose.
The headline seems to go as far as saying manufacturers should be forced to put warning signs on their packing.
At least someone is campaigning for better labelling, though it is plainly obvious some people end up buying phones unfit for their particular purpose.
The headline seems to go as far as saying manufacturers should be forced to put warning signs on their packing.
Good article. Weird how they then go on to test GSM900 though. Focus should surely be on newer technologies? Disagree slightly with the results in terms of real world bearing but suppose I'm not allowed to really.
In an ideal world, you wouldn't just want to force to 3G/4G but be able to adjust the thresholds so you can keep 2G for fallback as a last resort (but mean you don't get no signal at all).
One thing I like about Huawei phones (including the Nexus 6P) is they seem to like 4G and not dropping down and clinging on to 2G for dear life.
My iPhone 6s seems to cling onto 3G for dear life. Sometimes it's as if it doesn't even recognise 2G, like, I'll put it on my leg where it gets No Service, then hold it in my hand near there and 1 bar 3G; it's incredibly difficult to get it to use 2G without it going onto No Service in the process. My Samsung Galaxy Alpha, on the other hand, is EDGE everywhere in the room :L.
The Huawei phones sound perfect though, my iPhone drops from 4G way too early.
That old one is listed in 2G order, though the Xperia Z, in 2nd place was a great all round phone.
There is no mention of 4G, but what you can see is that many will likely be less able to drop down to 2G, in that they will at times fail to get a decent 2G signal too.
I'm probably being really stupid here... but why are the best signal phones getting the worst signal? like for example, S5 -98.5dBm Grade C vs 5S -90.2dBm Grade G?
Are phones responsible for bad reception or is it the network one is subscribed to that is the fault?
No simple answer to that. The network will depend on location and if you are inside a building and the building construction. New (since 2005) office blocks and new (since 2009) homes tend to have metal insulation that is very good at blocking all mobile signals, even if you have good signal outdoors. So whose fault is that?
You want a phone that is designed for good signal reception and isn't designed just to look good using a metal case that cuts 80% of the received signal - and you want a network that has enough sites in enough locations that you don't suffer from very low signal; finding the balance for both is the challenge for the individual. Each person's requirements are different.
That old one is listed in 2G order, though the Xperia Z, in 2nd place was a great all round phone.
There is no mention of 4G, but what you can see is that many will likely be less able to drop down to 2G, in that they will at times fail to get a decent 2G signal too.
Haha, that figures!
Though the Galaxy S4 did quite well on 2G, it was the 5th worst phone for 3G, which is what actually matters! Added to the fact that the S4 likes dropping down to 2G a lot anyway (whilst 3G is still usable), and you can see why there's a problem...
I think that, if I was to get a new phone, I'd get an LG G4. Heard good reports about these holding onto weak signals well, plus it has the field test mode and WCDMA/LTE only mode, which helps to cling to the last drop of 3G/4G.
My iPhone 6s seems to cling onto 3G for dear life. Sometimes it's as if it doesn't even recognise 2G, like, I'll put it on my leg where it gets No Service, then hold it in my hand near there and 1 bar 3G; it's incredibly difficult to get it to use 2G without it going onto No Service in the process. My Samsung Galaxy Alpha, on the other hand, is EDGE everywhere in the room :L.
The Huawei phones sound perfect though, my iPhone drops from 4G way too early.
If you want your phone to recognize 2G (albeit far too often), get a modern Samsung Galaxy phone! (Certainly, an S4 or newer.)
I'd rather that a phone did cling onto every last drop of 3G, then fall to No Service... though in an ideal world, you'd have the phone go from 4G to 3G, then cling onto the last drop of 3G, before going to 2G only if there is nothing else (with the phone switching from 2G back up to 3G or 4G at the first sight of a usable 3G/4G signal).
When this S4 gives up, I might just get something that I know has an LTE/WCDMA mode, then I won't need to worry about the phone dropping to 2G too early!
Check out anything made by Huawei, especially the models with multiple antennas. The Nexus 6P seems particularly good in this regard, including having support for ac Wi-Fi at 866Mbps. Not that I can really think of much need for such speed, unless you're transferring files over Wi-Fi.
I really hope Huawei make the next Nexus phone. It seems that might not be the case, which would be a damn shame.
Yes - I hear that the nexus 6p gets great signal strength. I was about to buy one and then found out they all have a calling issue where the person you are calling can't hear you properly due to a faulty noise cancellation hardware issue. Google it - there are lots of people on google's support forum complaining about it.
Good article. Weird how they then go on to test GSM900 though. Focus should surely be on newer technologies? Disagree slightly with the results in terms of real world bearing but suppose I'm not allowed to really.
I partly recall. they tested one band for 3G ages ago, which I assume would have been 2100MHZ used for Denmark.
Discrepency there was massive too. I suspect many phones focussed on the one decent band, being OK for others. What that means is that you really need to matchyour smartphone to your chosen network and location, that network using specific bands often unique to itself.
It is also pathetic that networks do not help with grading smartphone signals.
Though the Galaxy S4 did quite well on 2G, it was the 5th worst phone for 3G, which is what actually matters! Added to the fact that the S4 likes dropping down to 2G a lot anyway (whilst 3G is still usable), and you can see why there's a problem...
I think that, if I was to get a new phone, I'd get an LG G4....
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?
But the main UK 3G band is 2100. The 2nd table down shows it in 2100 order, best first.
Remembering a 3db upward increase is a doubling of signal quality, the S4 whilst outclassed by the Nokia 925 for 3G does achieve a very good 5th place.
The bottom phones only get one third the signal, making choice of phone extremely vital for a fair few people, the Xperia Z showing as maybe the best all round phone, that Nokia being useless at 2G 900.
It again shows you really should choose a phone that suits your network and its local bands. Of course, no one really seems to want to help you chose, info likely only coming to light, if ever, too late.
Comments
What we do know is that commercial interests are determined to keep us in the dark.
And historically smartphones sacrifice signal quality in certain wavelengths so that many people end up buying the most unsuited smartphone for their network.
I do not have time to search but I bet one of those Swedish or Danish sites still publish real data aimed at helping the consumer.
This thread is just mad, you've quoted and answered an even older post, well done , oh necromancer...
Your signal is loud and clear.
:eek:
Ive tried wrapping tinfoil around my head, but I'm still getting a signal
what we need is an independent lab with an anechoic chamber and GSM/UMTS/LTE test equipment at each frequency to publish an independent report. Not even Anandtech has the money for this :-/ The handset vendors have these but they keep the results to themselves for commercial reasons.
So all other data is subjective, as there are too many variables. Network frequency, distance to mast, mast load, weather impact, building construction etc. Manufacturing tolerance (yes, I've seen this on CB radio equipment in the 80s).
Typical of Samsung phones... My Samsung Galaxy S4 does this as well, though the S4 likes to hang on to 4G, then drop straight to 2G (rather than use 3G, which is better for data). Even the XDA Developer guys haven't managed to make a LTE/WCDMA option, which would be the solution.
It's a shame that Samsung phones do this, as (apart from that) they are excellent phones which I would highly recommend.
If and when my S4 gives up the ghost, I might have to look at other manufacturers, in the hope of clinging to the last drop of 3G/4G signal.
That old one is listed in 2G order, though the Xperia Z, in 2nd place was a great all round phone.
There is no mention of 4G, but what you can see is that many will likely be less able to drop down to 2G, in that they will at times fail to get a decent 2G signal too.
One thing I like about Huawei phones (including the Nexus 6P) is they seem to like 4G and not dropping down and clinging on to 2G for dear life.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/penge/kontant/nye-mobiler-dumper-test-af-antenner
The headlines zoomed into the fact that the iPhone 6S is near the bottom, but again, it ignores data, 3G and 4G.
Tests were done for a consumer program called Cash.
(note that is slightly older than the headlines, the 6S now moving to 30th place being worse than the 6, thus the degradation creating the headlines)
And the need to move to 2G might be exasperated by low quality 4G etc.
At least someone is campaigning for better labelling, though it is plainly obvious some people end up buying phones unfit for their particular purpose.
The headline seems to go as far as saying manufacturers should be forced to put warning signs on their packing.
Good article. Weird how they then go on to test GSM900 though. Focus should surely be on newer technologies? Disagree slightly with the results in terms of real world bearing but suppose I'm not allowed to really.
My iPhone 6s seems to cling onto 3G for dear life. Sometimes it's as if it doesn't even recognise 2G, like, I'll put it on my leg where it gets No Service, then hold it in my hand near there and 1 bar 3G; it's incredibly difficult to get it to use 2G without it going onto No Service in the process. My Samsung Galaxy Alpha, on the other hand, is EDGE everywhere in the room :L.
The Huawei phones sound perfect though, my iPhone drops from 4G way too early.
I'm probably being really stupid here... but why are the best signal phones getting the worst signal? like for example, S5 -98.5dBm Grade C vs 5S -90.2dBm Grade G?
That explains the growing importance of WiFi calling.
But of course you can often compensate for a crappy phone by choosing a different network.
No simple answer to that. The network will depend on location and if you are inside a building and the building construction. New (since 2005) office blocks and new (since 2009) homes tend to have metal insulation that is very good at blocking all mobile signals, even if you have good signal outdoors. So whose fault is that?
You want a phone that is designed for good signal reception and isn't designed just to look good using a metal case that cuts 80% of the received signal - and you want a network that has enough sites in enough locations that you don't suffer from very low signal; finding the balance for both is the challenge for the individual. Each person's requirements are different.
Haha, that figures!
Though the Galaxy S4 did quite well on 2G, it was the 5th worst phone for 3G, which is what actually matters! Added to the fact that the S4 likes dropping down to 2G a lot anyway (whilst 3G is still usable), and you can see why there's a problem...
I think that, if I was to get a new phone, I'd get an LG G4. Heard good reports about these holding onto weak signals well, plus it has the field test mode and WCDMA/LTE only mode, which helps to cling to the last drop of 3G/4G.
The field tester is incredibly useful though, I'll say that.
If you want your phone to recognize 2G (albeit far too often), get a modern Samsung Galaxy phone! (Certainly, an S4 or newer.)
I'd rather that a phone did cling onto every last drop of 3G, then fall to No Service... though in an ideal world, you'd have the phone go from 4G to 3G, then cling onto the last drop of 3G, before going to 2G only if there is nothing else (with the phone switching from 2G back up to 3G or 4G at the first sight of a usable 3G/4G signal).
When this S4 gives up, I might just get something that I know has an LTE/WCDMA mode, then I won't need to worry about the phone dropping to 2G too early!
I really hope Huawei make the next Nexus phone. It seems that might not be the case, which would be a damn shame.
I partly recall. they tested one band for 3G ages ago, which I assume would have been 2100MHZ used for Denmark.
Discrepency there was massive too. I suspect many phones focussed on the one decent band, being OK for others. What that means is that you really need to matchyour smartphone to your chosen network and location, that network using specific bands often unique to itself.
It is also pathetic that networks do not help with grading smartphone signals.
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?
http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobilerne-med-de-bedste-og-vaerste-antenner/
But the main UK 3G band is 2100. The 2nd table down shows it in 2100 order, best first.
Remembering a 3db upward increase is a doubling of signal quality, the S4 whilst outclassed by the Nokia 925 for 3G does achieve a very good 5th place.
The bottom phones only get one third the signal, making choice of phone extremely vital for a fair few people, the Xperia Z showing as maybe the best all round phone, that Nokia being useless at 2G 900.
It again shows you really should choose a phone that suits your network and its local bands. Of course, no one really seems to want to help you chose, info likely only coming to light, if ever, too late.