phonescoop.com
Cell phone reception RF reviews
Hey what happened to reviewing cell phones for their reception quality/ RF sensitivity?
When I do a search for "excellent reception" you get some subjective user reviews (here and elsewhere) but no sites - no consistency
Is it that hard to stick a transmitter in a lab and measure various cell phones for their sensitivity (ie. research independent of user perception and specific location)?
If anyone knows of any sites that provide the info - p lease post?
If anyone can recommend a tri mode GSM phone (T-mobile) with excellent reception, speaker phone and decent battery life - this is all I want! Please post links to reviews of the phone.
Thank you..
When I do a search for "excellent reception" you get some subjective user reviews (here and elsewhere) but no sites - no consistency
Is it that hard to stick a transmitter in a lab and measure various cell phones for their sensitivity (ie. research independent of user perception and specific location)?
If anyone knows of any sites that provide the info - p lease post?
If anyone can recommend a tri mode GSM phone (T-mobile) with excellent reception, speaker phone and decent battery life - this is all I want! Please post links to reviews of the phone.
Thank you..
...
It's something we've looked into.
We've talked to labs that do this kind of testing for the carriers, and what we learned was that it's just never as simple as "good reception" or "bad reception".
There are actually many dozens of factors that affect perceived RF performance. Some phones are better at dealing with some factors than others.
So phone X might excel with heavy interference while stationary in urban areas on Nortel tower equipment, but completely suck at handoffs at highway speed in rural areas on Nokia tower equipment, for example. And even that is simplifying things dramatically.
So if we just did some spots checks or simple labs tests, we couldn't remotely claim any kind of scientific accuracy. In fact, it could be...
(continues)
We've talked to labs that do this kind of testing for the carriers, and what we learned was that it's just never as simple as "good reception" or "bad reception".
There are actually many dozens of factors that affect perceived RF performance. Some phones are better at dealing with some factors than others.
So phone X might excel with heavy interference while stationary in urban areas on Nortel tower equipment, but completely suck at handoffs at highway speed in rural areas on Nokia tower equipment, for example. And even that is simplifying things dramatically.
So if we just did some spots checks or simple labs tests, we couldn't remotely claim any kind of scientific accuracy. In fact, it could be...
(continues)
...
Thanks for the reply, Rich.
I can appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty of a comprehensive testing solution. I would like to suggest that maybe lab test can just be a lab test -true under its on conditions and without any further pretensions . Like, tweak down the signal of a tower transmitter weaker and weaker and monitor which phones will work with the weakest signal - then rate the phone (or whatever test makes sense). Sure the lab wouldn't cover any of the real life contingencies, but neither does a car manufacturers mileage ratings, or a cell phone mftr's battery life ratings. All of them will vary depending on the usage conditions. Maybe something is better than nothing?
I don't understand how I one can tru...
(continues)
I can appreciate what you are saying about the difficulty of a comprehensive testing solution. I would like to suggest that maybe lab test can just be a lab test -true under its on conditions and without any further pretensions . Like, tweak down the signal of a tower transmitter weaker and weaker and monitor which phones will work with the weakest signal - then rate the phone (or whatever test makes sense). Sure the lab wouldn't cover any of the real life contingencies, but neither does a car manufacturers mileage ratings, or a cell phone mftr's battery life ratings. All of them will vary depending on the usage conditions. Maybe something is better than nothing?
I don't understand how I one can tru...
(continues)
...
The manufactures and carriers definitely do extensive RF testing. If they don't so it themselves, there are companies they pay to do it. We could do that too, it's just way, way too expensive.
Ultimately, the network makes MUCH more of a difference than the phone. Where there's a strong or even just average signal, nearly any phone will generally work fine. Where there's no signal, no phone will work. It's only in those fringe areas where it really matters.
Ultimately, the network makes MUCH more of a difference than the phone. Where there's a strong or even just average signal, nearly any phone will generally work fine. Where there's no signal, no phone will work. It's only in those fringe areas where it really matters.
...
and simply put, you want cingluar or verizon. i can 't really tell you which verizon phones are good cause i don't have em but for cingluar you either want a v60 *(i know it's old but it's amazing*) an e398/rokr, or a v600.
...
mistermarler said:
and simply put, you want cingluar or verizon. i can 't really tell you which verizon phones are good cause i don't have em but for cingluar you either want a v60 *(i know it's old but it's amazing*) an e398/rokr, or a v600.
Or a Sony Ericsson S710a, or a RAZR. Both great phones for signal on Cingular. The SE is a little better.
...
I guess the only way for a user to assess sensitivity is to "buy and try." Just got an LG VX5200 to replace my Motorola V60s. Had tested the Moto in a very weak area and got two bars. Then tested the LG in the same area and got zero bars. Have to conclude that Motos are more sensitive than LG's. LG went back to the store. Incidentally, the Moto with stub antenna got one bar; I added a 2.5" telescoping antenna and got the second bar.
...
Bars are not a good measurement at all.
Different manufacturers tie the "bar" displays to totally different measurable factors within the phone. There are dozens of factors that affect your ability to place and hold a call - the bars are typically only showing one of those factors.
Plus, some manufacturers may adjust the scale to make their phone look like it gets better reception than it does. Brand X might show full bars unless the signal is super-weak, while brand Y might only show full bars when the signal is super-strong... you never know.
If you want to do your own testing, don't even look at the bars - cover them up with tape or something - instead just go to the edge of fringe areas and try to place calls.
Different manufacturers tie the "bar" displays to totally different measurable factors within the phone. There are dozens of factors that affect your ability to place and hold a call - the bars are typically only showing one of those factors.
Plus, some manufacturers may adjust the scale to make their phone look like it gets better reception than it does. Brand X might show full bars unless the signal is super-weak, while brand Y might only show full bars when the signal is super-strong... you never know.
If you want to do your own testing, don't even look at the bars - cover them up with tape or something - instead just go to the edge of fringe areas and try to place calls.
...
I suppose that is why they should be referred to as "relative signal strength indicator". One thing is true though. Sometimes a fixed stubby antenna will have a cell pattern that is more a bubble shaped then a similar phone with an extendable antenna. But the one with the extendable might have a flatter cell pattern and thus reach further in the flat plain, but less up and down.
...
many tech people when they ask for what is going on signal wise they usually ask what the tx status becuase those bars mean absolutely nothing.
many people, especially techs, look at the signal strength and signal quality.
(as rich said, you could have 3 "bars" but it wouldnt really 3 "bars" becuase it is horrible quality when you check the signal quality information. same if you have 1 "bar" or full "bars" )
many people, especially techs, look at the signal strength and signal quality.
(as rich said, you could have 3 "bars" but it wouldnt really 3 "bars" becuase it is horrible quality when you check the signal quality information. same if you have 1 "bar" or full "bars" )
...
Rich:
Can't disagree with you, but the fact remains: in identical locations in a fringe area the Moto made and received calls while the LG could do neither. And the Moto did it before I added the new antenna.
2.5" telescoping antenna added to the Moto definitely added sensitivity and looks hefty enough to withstand a lot of abuse. Not sure why everyone is going to the stub antenna.
Dave Jones (greencay)
Can't disagree with you, but the fact remains: in identical locations in a fringe area the Moto made and received calls while the LG could do neither. And the Moto did it before I added the new antenna.
2.5" telescoping antenna added to the Moto definitely added sensitivity and looks hefty enough to withstand a lot of abuse. Not sure why everyone is going to the stub antenna.
Dave Jones (greencay)
...
