RT-N66U range seems low

[Peacen1k]

Hi all.

I just replaced my Netgear WNDR3700v2 with the RT-N66U and did not get any increase in signal range. On the contrary, the range is lower, as measured by a survey app on my android phone, and also by the fact that devices in my house that used to work ok at extreme ranges are performing worse or just keep disconnecting.

The range did not change when I replaced the stock ASUS firmware with asuswrt-merlin. I tried several different combinations of bandwidths and channels (wrt other signals in my area) with no discernibly different results. Tx is at 100%, the router is in the same location as the one it replaced.

Is this normal, or is there something wrong with my router?

 

[L&LD]

Newer Asus routers and stock firmware are forced to operate with a maximum 80mW signal.

If you want the maximum signal available, try the hggomes fork (you'll need to PM him for the link).

Depending on what band you're seeking better range in and the cost of the RT-N66U you purchased, it may be better to spend a little more and get an RT-AC68U or above.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/bar/116-5-ghz-updn-c

I do not recommending using a handheld device and their apps for WiFi information. These devices are power limited and performance is not their forte. Which means neither is the information they relay too useful.

Simply testing every single channel available (1, 6 and 11 on 2.4GHz and ALL 5GHz channels) for maximum throughput, regardless of what the 'app' shows, is the best way to get the most from your wireless.

 

[Blinkyz]

You can try with this alternative...
http://www.snbforums.com/threads/fork-update-for-374-43-available.18914/

Lots of peoples complaining about Wireless range since 376.xxx version with N66

 

[dlandiss]

That reminds me to ask -- I like to use the 5GHz WiFi band for its lack of interference. I viewed the Higgins charts for 5GHz downlink range of nearly 50 routers and the RT-N66U had better range than even the newest $300 routers. On the attached chart, for example, once you get past about 25dB of attenuation (which isn't all that far from the router) the N66U is measurably better than the others.

1) Is this real? It sure seems to be better in actual use!

2) Is there something unique about the N66U design or construction that makes it so much better?

Thank you!

 

[sm00thpapa]

Load the older .270, .271 or .276 for better range. After .276 this router is $%&@.

 

[Blinkyz]

This is an old graph,many things have changed since with newers fw

View attachment 3543[/QUOTE]

 

[dlandiss]

This is an old graph,many things have changed since with newers fw

Quite true, but both the "sdk5" version of Merlin's firmware, and John's fork from that version, are available and work quite well. We have a dozen or so N66U models in >100 year old houses with thick walls, and have yet to find a router that can match its range under those difficult conditions.

 

[Peacen1k]

Thank y'all for your help!

I loaded john9527's Merlin fork 374.43_2-10 and it's working great! The range has increased significantly, so all's good.

 

[Nullity]

Thank y'all for your help!

I loaded john9527's Merlin fork 374.43_2-10 and it's working great! The range has increased significantly, so all's good.

Any statistics to share?

Previous signal strength, throughput, error rate, etc, compared to your current results?

 

[Peacen1k]

Any statistics to share?

Previous signal strength, throughput, error rate, etc, compared to your current results?

Nothing too scientific, I'm afraid.

John's firmware has a Tx power setting with the max of 200 mW. I found that any setting above around 100 didn't seem to make any meaningful difference, with varying the channels providing the most improvement at that point.

The wi-fi survey app showed the signal strength at the source averaging -25 dBm with the new firmware, as opposed to around -37 dBm with stock. The improvement diminished with range; however, devices that failed to function with stock firmware now retained their connection with useful data throughput.

 

[dlandiss]

This is an old graph,many things have changed since with newers fw

The complaint often read here is that the newer firmware limits transmit power. So I looked at the charts for UPLOAD profiles on the 5GHz band, where the router's receiver should play a bigger role than the transmitter. The RT-N66U still outperforms more expensive models (including a "600 mW" Amped unit).

BTW, even though we run either the Merlin sdk5 version or John's fork, we use only the legal 80mW transmit power -- and still see noticeably better range. So I think there is something superior about the RF design of the N66U, not just the former ability to increase transmitter power.

 

[dlandiss]

John's firmware has a Tx power setting with the max of 200 mW. I found that any setting above around 100 didn't seem to make any meaningful difference

Not surprising, since 200mW is only 3dB more power -- and the client's power was not increased to balance the transmit/receive path. 100mW is less than 1dB greater than the legal 80mW, so it is really not worth changing the default.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

The complaint often read here is that the newer firmware limits transmit power. So I looked at the charts for UPLOAD profiles on the 5GHz band, where the router's receiver should play a bigger role than the transmitter. The RT-N66U still outperforms more expensive models (including a "600 mW" Amped unit).

BTW, even though we run either the Merlin sdk5 version or John's fork, we use only the legal 80mW transmit power -- and still see noticeably better range. So I think there is something superior about the RF design of the N66U, not just the former ability to increase transmitter power.

With Johns fork for the N66 he is using the EM in his builds that alone has a much better signal output then 80 mw no qustion there. This is why everyone that has tried Johns fork for the N66 loves the firmware it brings the router back to life unlike the new Asus and Merlin builds that have very poor range.

 

[dlandiss]

he is using the EM in his builds that alone has a much better signal output then 80 mw no qustion there

Something else is going on. My transmitter power for both 2.4GHz and 5GHz is set to 80mW, as it is for about a dozen of the N66U I have installed in century-old homes with thick stone walls. I have yet to find a router with its range.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

Something else is going on. My transmitter power for both 2.4GHz and 5GHz is set to 80mW, as it is for about a dozen of the N66U I have installed in century-old homes with thick stone walls. I have yet to find a router with its range.

I dont really think the TX power number matters much if any and certainly is not accurate.

 

[sm00thpapa]

Something else is going on. My transmitter power for both 2.4GHz and 5GHz is set to 80mW, as it is for about a dozen of the N66U I have installed in century-old homes with thick stone walls. I have yet to find a router with its range.

If you're getting great range with those type of walls that's awesome. Most of those stone and concrete walls have metal grates behind them. My home is just wood and sheet rock. But all the door frames have I think it is aluminum around them. That may be cutting off my signal a little.

 

[dlandiss]

I dont really think the TX power number matters much if any and certainly is not accurate.

My understanding is that the firmware defines the maximum, and that the 802.11 protocols require that transmitter power be reduced if good data communication speeds can be achieved with less power. John's firmware fork raises the cap, but does not automatically use the higher power unless two requirements are satisfied:

1) The higher cap has been configured during router setup, and

2) It is required for good data speeds during the specific connection instance.

John and Merlin, please correct me if I have misunderstood. Thank you.

 

[dlandiss]

My home is just wood and sheet rock.

Just wondering -- do you notice any loss of range in wet weather? Sheet rock (dry wall??) can absorb a fair amount of humidity from the air, as can wood, and that would increase loss.

 

[Deleted member 22229]

My understanding is that the firmware defines the maximum, and that the 802.11 protocols require that transmitter power be reduced if good data communication speeds can be achieved with less power. John's firmware fork raises the cap, but does not automatically use the higher power unless two requirements are satisfied:

1) The higher cap has been configured during router setup, and

2) It is required for good data speeds during the specific connection instance.

John and Merlin, please correct me if I have misunderstood. Thank you.

The difference is John is using a special EM build for the N66 the EM build really allows this router to work as it should just as well as the old SDK5 driver that made the N66 one of the best range home routers money could buy at the time. If you need more info on the EM N66 build just head over to the fork thread I am sure John can explain further. Also using John's fork allows commands to be used to further increase output power if one so desires for me its not needed.