DS Forums

 
 

The best phone for signal strength?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-06-2016, 09:47
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
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.
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-06-2016, 10:29
alanwarwic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the wild world web
Posts: 28,132
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....
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?

http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-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.
alanwarwic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2016, 18:57
1manonthebog
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,324
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?

http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-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.
Any Samsung I've had has been rubbish in weak signal areas. My iPhone 6 can get at least 1 bar anywhere around the house, the S5 usually is sitting with nothing. I had an S4 previously and something it like to do was display signal even when you had none, it would log onto any network and display Emergency Call Only I presume so you can at least make an emergency call if you need to, No for me Samsungs are rubbish for signal.
1manonthebog is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-06-2016, 19:50
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
The Google Nexus 6P has fantastic signal.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2016, 23:47
beans0ntoast
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 932
Really? Maybe you are influenced by people being more keen than factual about Samsungs being bad?

http://meremobil.dk/2013/12/er-mobil...rste-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.
I do actually vouch from experience that my S4 doesn't seem great at latching onto weak 3G signals. Even my old Samsung Galaxy Ace Plus, which has been dropped a couple of times, seems to do better in terms of signal strength (and stays on 3G without having to force WCDMA mode!).

The real annoying thing about the S4 though, is making it seem like you have a better signal by dropping down to useless 2G too early. I mean, what's the point in having a smartphone if it wants to chug along on a network band that allows a maximum of about 150kbps?

When my S4 gives up, I'm going to get something that not only is recommended to have a good antenna for weaker 3G signals, but also the option to totally turn off 2G GSM, whilst allowing both 3G and 4G.
beans0ntoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 12:49
Denco1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 983
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance.
Denco1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 23:21
CheshireBumpkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 589
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance.
Really interesting - yes, they really seem to have pulled their socks up with the S7.

I'm disappointed to see how poorly the iphone SE does - that may be off my options list now...
CheshireBumpkin is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 23:30
FmBandScan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Grimsby, United Kingdom
Posts: 848
How are HTC phones reception wise?
FmBandScan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 23:39
CheshireBumpkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Cheshire/Shropshire Border
Posts: 589
How are HTC phones reception wise?
Take a look at the link. The 626 seems to do pretty well. Purely based on personal experience, my old One M7 always seemed good.
CheshireBumpkin is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2016, 23:48
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
I find the 6s to be quite good. Certainly an improvement over LG G4.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2016, 14:30
mupet0000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 620
http://www.pts.se/upload/Rapporter/T...gusti-2016.pdf
Samsung appear to have done very well in 4G performance.
A very interesting test indeed. I haven't actually had my hands on a Galaxy S7 but I can't say I've heard anything bad about them signal wise. The poor performance I got out of my S6 at launch just put me off Samsung.

The iPhone 6S+ doesn't do very well in this test and I'm quite shocked, I find it to be almost as good as my Nexus 6, which is the best phone I've ever used in terms of signal strength. The Nexus 6 would hold a signal for dear life where phones like the Galaxy S4/S6 and HTC m8 would have absolutely nothing. The iPhone 6S is certainly not as good as the Nexus, but it beats the other phones I've mentioned quite easily in my personal usage.

I still wish that signal strength/antenna performance was a category of testing that reviewers performed every time a new smartphone was released. It seems that unless there's something catastrophically wrong, people just blame their carrier rather than the device. This has got to change, manufacturers are free to cheap out on antennas, as long as the device has a reasonable and working signal, it's considered to be perfectly adequate. It can be the difference between having EDGE or 4G indoors, or even no signal vs a working signal.
mupet0000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2016, 16:31
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
Agree entirely that publication of signal reception performance should be a compulsory part of all mobile phone and tablet specifications. Most online reviews barely even touch on this aspect, of which both 4G data and 2G voice/text performance are the most important IMO (the latter for reasons of security/safety/emergency use).

After reading the comments about the Samsung S5/6 earlier in the thread I was a bit concerned about my choice to get a Samsung S7 next week but the 2016 tests mentioned in post #81 (many thanks to that poster) appear to show a considerable improvement over their previous models so I'm OK with it now. On the other hand, it partly explains the less-than-reliable reception issues that my daughter is having with iPhone 6.

Glad to find this thread, it's a much overlooked subject IMO.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2016, 16:37
shaggy_x
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Deep South (Yorkshire)
Posts: 3,416
I can only speak from point of view of using Samsungs and IPhones over the past few years.

I have found iPhones to be MUCH better in terms of signal. Samsungs have generally had poor reception and I've owned the Note 4, S4, S5 and when I sold the S4 and S5 the new owners BOTH commented on how crap the signal is and even had to get the phone 'repaired' by Samsung.

A couple of my mates have Samsungs and are always cutting out in reception areas where they shouldnt be.
shaggy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-09-2016, 16:44
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
That seems to be generally agreed in the thread, except that the newest S7 series appear to be much improved over the previous few models, according to the scientific tests. It will be interesting to see how iPhone 7 turns out, when it's tested.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 15:00
Martin_Andanar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 28

Perhaps the S6 is a little too similar to the rest of the competition (it looks stunningly like an iPhone at the bottom) but at least there's the Galaxy S6 Edge for those that want a have a better signal.
Martin_Andanar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 17:17
TheSloth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under Your Bed
Posts: 5,488
Heard good things about the Nexus 6P and signal strength. Good phone for the money theses days too (and with Nougat).
TheSloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 18:24
1manonthebog
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,324
Have to say my S7 really is excellent at keeping signal and I live in a poor signal area, it always has signal and my iPhone 6S rarely gets signal at home
1manonthebog is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 18:49
Ed3925
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 97
Have to say my S7 really is excellent at keeping signal and I live in a poor signal area, it always has signal and my iPhone 6S rarely gets signal at home
Where the S7 does well is holding onto a very weak 4G signal and avoiding 'emergency calls only' unless there really is nothing available on your network. This can make data usable in poorly served areas. Where 4G is completely unavailable, I don't find the phone any better or worse than other popular phones.

I find the S7 works well on EE because I essentially have 4G all the time, except inside a few buildings. Even then, I can often send a text or open Google on zero bars of 4G. I can also make VoLTE calls on very weak 4G ie. when data has stalled.
Ed3925 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 19:25
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
Seems Huawei went down with the P9 which is a shame.

The Google Pixel seems to be pretty reasonable.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 15:46
Aaron_McGowan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 59
I've seen the S7 mentioned on here but does anyone know how the S7 Edge is in terms of signal quality?

If the S7 Edge isn't very good for signals (I've seen others comment on how poor the S4/S5/S6/Note 3/Note 4 are) then what would a good alternative be, on the Android front?
Aaron_McGowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 17:13
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
The S7 is fantastic and the Edge uses the same antenna system does it not? It's also bigger and so should provide a better signal like the iPhone 7 Plus provides a better signal than the 7.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 21:36
Aaron_McGowan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 59
The S7 is fantastic and the Edge uses the same antenna system does it not? It's also bigger and so should provide a better signal like the iPhone 7 Plus provides a better signal than the 7.
Thanks. I can see why the iPhone 7 Plus is better than the 7, because the antenna lines go across the body, so a bigger antenna means better signal.

Didn't know if there was any difference between the S7 and the S7 edge (because the Samsung's don't have visible antenna lines, like the iPhones).

Is this the case for 4G as well? I have read through this thread and notice a couple of other users commenting on prior Samsung's dropping to 2G, is the S7/S7 edge OK in this manner or does it also drop back to 2G?
Aaron_McGowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 21:42
Gigabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,875
It stays on 4G all the time and seems to work better at lower signal levels than other phones I've used recently.

I was particularly impressed with the S7 forced to 4G on Three how much more widespread 800MHz was than I thought. The signal just went on and on whilst I was in the car.
Gigabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 13:21
Aaron_McGowan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 59
It stays on 4G all the time and seems to work better at lower signal levels than other phones I've used recently.

I was particularly impressed with the S7 forced to 4G on Three how much more widespread 800MHz was than I thought. The signal just went on and on whilst I was in the car.
Thanks for the info.

One last question: I've read up on the EE thread (and on a separate thread) that EE will soon be launching 4G on its 800MHz frequency. Will an unlocked S7 edge do or does it have to be bought from EE in the first place? Assuming that the S7 Edge supports EE's 800MHz, which it should do if it supports Three 800MHz.
Aaron_McGowan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 13:23
InfamousTeal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 301
It must be bought directly from EE to work natively. I believe it can be flashed with an EE ROM to make it work, but someone can properly confirm that
InfamousTeal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57.