RT-AX86U Pro, wow.

[snovvman]

I have 3 nodes that covers my house. Although there are still bad spots, I am satisfied with the coverage without feeling the need to add a 4th. Some time ago, I bought the most expensive Deco hoping to replace the trio because I wanted 6Ghz and WiFi7. After testing the 2.4 and 5Ghz coverage, I immediately returned them.

Recently, I tried the Asus BT8s, they are okay, but did not provide nearly the coverage. Then, I got 3 Unifi APs. I know they are built for stability, but after doing some site survey, I will probably need to get 5 to replace the 3 AX86s.

Is it the external antennas, and that they are aimable? Is it that they are unsightly in my house and ugly = performance? I know they are well-loved and workhorses. What makes them so special? I have yet to see APs that provide the range that they do. They perform well too. Has anyone found APs that can hold a candle against the AX86s, has 6Ghz, WiFi7, and ideally 4x4 5Ghz?

 

[Tech9]

Has anyone found APs that can hold a candle against the AX86s, has 6Ghz, WiFi7, and ideally 4x4 5Ghz?

My UniFi U6-Mesh APs have similar range to RT-AX86U. I have 4x APs though running on low power (100mW or 20dBm). Power over 400mW or 26dBm is mostly increasing the environment noise since the range becomes more defined by the clients with their 12-14dBm radios. What you perceive as great Wi-Fi will be assessed as Poor in Ubiquiti UniFi due to highly disbalanced Tx/Rx links to clients.

 

[snovvman]

My UniFi U6-Mesh APs have similar range to RT-AX86U. I have 4x APs though running on low power (100mW or 20dBm). Power over 400mW or 26dBm is mostly increasing the environment noise since the range becomes more defined by the clients with their 12-14dBm radios. What you perceive as great Wi-Fi will be assessed as Poor in Ubiquiti UniFi due to highly disbalanced Tx/Rx links to clients.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to understand more. When checking for range, I used two phones--one on a continuous local upload speed test, the other scanning APs showing signal strength. There are distant spots where the AX would show up on the scan software but U7 Pro would not. Other spots where the AX will sustain 10-30Mbps on 2.4 whereas the U7 Pro can only do 0-5Mbps.

If I understand what you wrote, the AP can transmit farther than the client, but the AP will have to be able to "hear" the transmission, and that's where gain and better antennas on the AP matters? My assumption was that since, in some spots, the Unifi doesn't even show up, that is has "less" range. Am I looking at this wrong? By the way, I was testing one-for-one. In other words, I was comparing one AX and one U7 Pro from the same spot while I walked around the house to do the site survey.

 

[Tech9]

I'd like to understand more.

All AIO home routers blast as much as possible power to cover maximum area even at -80dBm signal level. They are designed to work this way as single AP. Not great Wi-Fi, but saves money, space, energy. SMB APs on the other hand are designed to work in clusters and supplement each other. If you want great Wi-Fi with optimal performance you need APs with similar to the clients power and overlapping coverage with -54/60dBm signal level. It will cost more money, will need wired infrastructure and will use more power. It's not like one is bad and the other good though. They are just different market products with different requirements and expectations.

If I understand what you wrote, the AP can transmit farther than the client, but the AP will have to be able to "hear" the transmission, and that's where gain and better antennas on the AP matters?

Correct, but your RT-AX86U Pro doesn't have better antennas. They are low-gain 2dBi dipole about 5cm long and all the rest is non-functional plastic. U6-Mesh have higher gain 5dBi internal antennas, for example. The client can hear a loud high-power AP, but may not be able to reply back. Wi-Fi is 2-way communication. This is where range limitation comes from.

My assumption was that since, in some spots, the Unifi doesn't even show up, that is has "less" range. Am I looking at this wrong?

This means you need more APs. If you check Ubiquiti Community Forums for Wi-Fi planning tips - almost no one is running APs on high power with maximum range idea. This type of Wi-Fi planning is wrong for SMB. You pay more and the end result is similar to home routers. You've got lucky your AiMesh is kind of okay in a large area. With no per-AP control you'll have severe roaming issues with sticky clients or clients connecting to the further located node. Very common issue, but most people don't understand the cause.

 

[Tech9]

I'd like to understand more.

You've got lucky

Found some example pictures online showing when you may get lucky with AiMesh. If your situation with routers on full power looks like this - you're good:

If your situation is more like this though - you need multi-APs system with per-AP control to balance your Wi-Fi:

Note all 3x APs in the first example with the same power and "coverage". This is what they can do, the placement happens to be okay by luck. You can't expand or reduce the coverage, you can only move the routers around. Note the 3x APs in the second example with different power and coverage. When you have no optimal placement options this system can expand or reduce the coverage per AP. Some home mesh systems do it automatically, but mostly Qualcomm hardware based with built-in mesh features on silicon/drivers level (Eero, Nest, some Deco models). Asus AiMesh currently doesn't have this functionality.

 

[snovvman]

All AIO home routers blast as much as possible power to cover maximum area even at -80dBm signal level. They are designed to work this way as single AP. Not great Wi-Fi, but saves money, space, energy. SMB APs on the other hand are designed to work in clusters and supplement each other. If you want great Wi-Fi with optimal performance you need APs with similar to the clients power and overlapping coverage with -54/60dBm signal level. It will cost more money, will need wired infrastructure and will use more power. It's not like one is bad and the other good though. They are just different market products with different requirements and expectations.

I think I understand. The client's transmission power is less than the AP. Ideally, the client and the AP's power are matched and with overlapping coverage. That way, the client and the AP can equally hear each other well?

Correct, but your RT-AX86U Pro doesn't have better antennas. They are low-gain 2dBi dipole about 5cm long and all the rest is non-functional plastic. U6-Mesh have higher gain 5dBi internal antennas, for example. The client can hear a loud high-power AP, but may not be able to reply back. Wi-Fi is 2-way communication. This is where range limitation comes from.

I didn't know that the AX has such low gain antennas. Those plastic sticks make one think that they are signal blasters. With the -54/60dBm you mentioned above, do they apply to all 3 bands? Curiously, why 54 (and not, for example, 52)?

This means you need more APs. If you check Ubiquiti Community Forums for Wi-Fi planning tips - almost no one is running APs on high power with maximum range idea. This type of Wi-Fi planning is wrong for SMB. You pay more and the end result is similar to home routers. You've got lucky your AiMesh is kind of okay in a large area. With no per-AP control you'll have severe roaming issues with sticky clients or clients connecting to the further located node. Very common issue, but most people don't understand the cause.

You are correct--I've seen clients connecting to the farthest AP so I end up having to lock them to the closest AP. I understand the sticky client issue, but thought that I just needed to tune the roaming assistant, but didn't want to end up causing excessive disconnects.

Your signature shows that you have 4 U6 APs. How many square feet do they cover? One or two stories? Prior to Unifi, how many AIOs did you have? Also, can Unifi APs coordinate and tune their power levels so there is sufficient overlap but not overpower?

I used Design Center but the actual does not align with the plan.

Many thanks.

 

[snovvman]

Found some example pictures online showing when you may get lucky with AiMesh. If your situation with routers on full power looks like this - you're good:

[snip]

If your situation is more like this though - you need multi-APs system with per-AP control to balance your Wi-Fi:

[snip]

Note all 3x APs in the first example with the same power and "coverage". This is what they can do, the placement happens to be okay by luck. You can't expand or reduce the coverage, you can only move the routers around. Note the 3x APs in the second example with different power and coverage. When you have no optimal placement options this system can expand or reduce the coverage per AP. Some home mesh systems do it automatically, but mostly Qualcomm hardware based with built-in mesh features on silicon/drivers level (Eero, Nest, some Deco models). Asus AiMesh currently doesn't have this functionality.

My situation is something between 1 and 2, but two are in fact at each end of the house and one is in the middle. I see that this is where Unifi is better--to be able to adjust power based on proximity. @Tech9, thank you so much for taking the time to explain and the examples. It is much appreciated!

 

[Tech9]

How many square feet do they cover? One or two stories?

This information is irrelevant since Wi-Fi planning in different environments and regions is different. The devices even the same model have different pre-loaded settings according to local regulations. If you think your routers have great coverage - you are perhaps in the US/CA with up to 1000mW power allowed on both 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands non-DFS. In EU 2.4GHz band is limited to 100mW and 5GHz non-DFS to 200mW. Your same model in EU region will have approximately the same range as almost any other router or AP on the market. I own properties in CA and EU regions, in CA 4x APs may cover >6000sqft, in EU may not be enough for 2000sqft. The difference comes from building materials used as well, not only from maximum allowed power.

Also, can Unifi APs coordinate and tune their power levels so there is sufficient overlap but not overpower?

There is Auto setting available, but no one is using it because on most UniFi hardware it's equal to High. If you know what are you doing Smart and Auto are not your friends. The best performance is around -52dBm signal levels since they allow maximum PHY rates. The best AP overlap is around -65dBm since it's still good quality signal and allows high PHY rates.