Related
Just got in the new Samsung Nexus S from Sprint and I've noticed some major issues in reception versus the HTC Evo from Sprint as well. I'm seeing a 2+ bar difference in the exact location sitting next to the Evo on the same Sprint network.
Is anybody having this issue? Or does anybody know of a fix.
I have the latest firmware (suggested fix by Sprint) and have seen several complaints about it on other less developer friendly forums.
If I can't come up with a solution soon, I think I'll have to get an Evo. But if you guys can understand, I'd prefer to keep the phone that will get timely updates.
Thanks ahead of time for any suggestions!
You can't compare signal across different devices based on "bars". Check the actual signal strength in Menu > Settings > About Phone.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
I know you need dB... As soon as I can get the Evo next to me again for a comparison, I will post.
I'm a tech savvy guy, run a computer building company and build websites. I even develop some entry-level apps for a few clients (yes entry-level).
If one googles "spring nexus s reception," they'll find that this issue is quite common. I'm just curious as to whether it's hopeless or not.
I know I can petition for the Airave with Sprint and can at least get decent service at home.
It just seems peculiar to me that Google would endorse an inferior product. I live in a major Metropolitan area (DMA has it as a top 25 market - for those who aren't in the media business, that means it's one of the top 25 sized cities in the country). And this phone gets dismal reception.
Fact is, Evo does great in my house, Nexus S does not. I've heard some pretty bad reviews with the Galaxy S line of hardware so I'm figuring it's worth moving to the Evo.
To be honest, this phone is far superior (at the moment) with responsiveness and usability but if a phone can't operate well at being a phone, it's a waste of money. Especially if the hardware is inferior (phone-wise) to most of what HTC released a year ago. I love having a mini-computer in my pocket but I did aim at having a working phone.
Thoughts? Suggestions? School me? I will post the exact numbers when they again are available, until then, please only offer up friendly advice or questions. I am willing to try anything before taking this thing back.
You have not really described your issue. Do you have dropped calls or what?
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
I'm having issues with the Sprint Nexus S reception as well. Although my home location on Sprint's coverage map lists my area from medium to strong with 4G available right around the corner from my house I have dismal reception with the Nexus S. I had a trial EVO for a few weeks and reception was much better in the same area. If I try to call the Nexus S I often go right to voicemail, I'm told calls out (when I can) are choppy, data signal is often listed as 1x as opposed to 3g. Is it just this particular phone? Should I go to a Sprint store to have it tested?
There is atl least one thread over at the Sprint Message boards about bad reception on the Nexus S.
At work we have a repeater and the signal still only shows at one or two bars most of the time but data speeds seemed fine to me and I had no problem with making and getting calls.
No one else is having this issue?
This isn't the first post about this subject. I understand and agree. I'm not 100% sure about this when it comes to cell phones but different companies with different radios will give you different signals. If this is the same as two way radios, there's no standard on say how much signal equals one bar on the meter. Even the programs that give the signal strength in numbers, aren't universally accurate. When it comes to received signal, its how you can hear it, not really what the meter says. That number can easily be manipulated. A receiver sensitivity can be adjusted too but there are things that are thrown out too. Crank up the receive and you get more noise than distinguishing signal and adjacent frequency rejection goes to crap. You can work the receiver to have good rejection and sensitivity but you are making it more deaf too.
What I'm getting at is don't always go by what the signal meter says and take it as 100% truth. It is a good indicator of signal but not absolutely 100% accurate.
I am sitting about twenty feet from my router and yet the meter is telling me 50% signal which I know is bull****.
are you up to date?
Yobye, are you on 2.3.4? I have heard the update fixes some people's signal/radio issues.
yobyeknom said:
I'm having issues with the Sprint Nexus S reception as well. Although my home location on Sprint's coverage map lists my area from medium to strong with 4G available right around the corner from my house I have dismal reception with the Nexus S. I had a trial EVO for a few weeks and reception was much better in the same area. If I try to call the Nexus S I often go right to voicemail, I'm told calls out (when I can) are choppy, data signal is often listed as 1x as opposed to 3g. Is it just this particular phone? Should I go to a Sprint store to have it tested?
There is atl least one thread over at the Sprint Message boards about bad reception on the Nexus S.
At work we have a repeater and the signal still only shows at one or two bars most of the time but data speeds seemed fine to me and I had no problem with making and getting calls.
No one else is having this issue?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ditto on this. Have all the latest updates. Think it may be time to trade in for the Evo.
I am on 2.3.4. I brought home another Sprint phone from work - a Sanyo Taho and got about the same terrible reception despite the fact I'm in a Sprint Best Coverage area on their map. I miss and drop calls and can't get voice or data connection - send mms, etc from my home. I've contacted Sprint about the tower strength in my neighborhood.
Should I return my OG galaxy s2 that I just got about a week ago for the skyrocket? I heard the OG Galaxys2 is still faster because3 of the Exynos processor. Need some advice on which phone is faster/better.
I think there is already like 4 other threads about this haha. I think it really boils down to whether you have LTE in your area or not. I have LTE where I live and made the switch, LTE is so fast that it was well worth the switch. The Exynos vs Snapdragon debate is a little played out and doesn't make as big of a difference in the phone as many are making it out to be, my Skyrocket is just as fast in real life day to day usage. Should we assume you are thinking of returning your OG GSII before your 30 day window of opportunity? Are you expecting to get LTE soon?
jbsg02 said:
I think there is already like 4 other threads about this haha. I think it really boils down to whether you have LTE in your area or not. I have LTE where I live and made the switch, LTE is so fast that it was well worth the switch. The Exynos vs Snapdragon debate is a little played out and doesn't make as big of a difference in the phone as many are making it out to be, my Skyrocket is just as fast in real life day to day usage. Should we assume you are thinking of returning your OG GSII before your 30 day window of opportunity? Are you expecting to get LTE soon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im within the 30 days yes. I live in Toledo, Oh so I have no clue when we would get LTE coverage in my area.
Without LTE I would have stuck with my original GSII, I like the 4.3" screen a little better
Everyone will say that it depends on the person and their needs/wants. But then again, you are posting in Skyrocket forum...
I returned my $200 SGS2 and walked out with 2 Skyrockets for $300. One for me and the wife. If there wasnt that deal, I would probably stick with the SGS2. Both almost the same size, might as well get a bigger screen.
As for speed, they're both still fast. A hairline in bench marks didnt bother me. Resolutions still decent- some people exagerate about its low quality. Heck, I'm a graphic designer and photographer, I'm good with the resolution. Phone is usually a foot away from my face anyhow. Also, I'm not really much a gamer, but I do love my tower defense games (Sentinel 3 is awesome with a bigger screen).
My opinion, SGS2 has better screen quality, better 3D graphics, (insanely better? no. but technically better). Skyrocket has weird issue with their screens in dim lighting with neutral grays (doesnt bother me, I not at dim or looking at neutral grays). Some encounter problems, some look for it. Would I go back to SGS2 if it was the same price? No.
Why Skyrocket (for me): Bigger screen, faster internet speed. Use internet more than anything, play games where a bigger screen would be nicer.
If I had the opportunity, I would probably get the Skyrocket. The larger screen is magnificent. While the exynos variant gets better development support, the real world differences between the two are likely negligible. Most people I've seen say that there isn't much difference, others say they notice. Initially, I made the decision to keep my original GS2. A short time after my 30 day window passed, I kind of regretted it. Either one will be an excellent choice. I just want the larger screen. I may buy it outright just for the heck of it.
I had the S2 and exchanged it for the SR being as I was in my 30 return window.
I like the phone much better. The extra screen size for me is a plus, I don't notice the pixelation other people talk about.
For what I do with the phone I don't notice the difference in processors. I really think a lot of people put too much stock in the benchmarks just to say their phone is faster that your's. Faster benchmarks mean nothing to 90+% of phone users being as most people never probably use a fraction of the processor speed anyway.
My only issue is that although I live in an LTE area, I am on the fringe of the LTE coverage and often it will hover on lower bars of reception on LTE where as HSPA would give me full bars. You would think I would get a bit better reception with LTE being as it is a lower freq with better building penetration.
I really wish there was a way to turn off the LTE radio and stick with HSPA if I wanted to. When I am in a deep LTE coverage area it is fine, but where I live at I would prefer to keep it on HSPA to maintain a better signal and battery life. I am not into rooting, and I am sure when the ability to turn off LTE comes out it will probably be for custom ROMs.
I know it is a contridiction to want an LTE device and want to run it on HSPA, but until they convert a few more towers in my fringe area, HSPA is fine. Also at home I am always on my WiFi.
One thing I did notice, which is wierd. SMS and MMS send much faster on LTE than on HSPA. I can actually notice how much faster it is.
But I did want to be a bit more future proof and have the latest phone. Of course I can't remember keeping a phone over a year anyway. I am sure there will be a Galaxy S 3 out by the time LTE starts getting built out a bit more.
I'd do the exchange you get a bigger screen and more CPU power. I'm not in an lte area and haven't noticed any difference still get great speeds.. I did the exchange your talking about
Thanks for all the help. I think im gonna keep the OG galaxy2 just because I have no idea when I will have LTE
much more dev support on og sgsII
I had the original Galaxy S2 but took it back because of some dead pixels and Mini USB port was very loose and was causing disconnect with the slightest movement. I loved the original Galaxy S2 my only complaints about it would be the battery life, loose mini USB connection (bad design I feel) and it was too thin for me. I don’t have the biggest hands in the world but the phone was not comfortable to me in the hands.
I did see all the comments about how the skyrocket would not be beneficial unless you were in a LTE network and also since the proc in the GS2 seems to be outperforming the proc in the skyrocket it didn’t make since to purchase it in addition to that it had a worse battery life.
I don’t do a lot of gaming so the proc was not a huge concern to me and even though LTE is not available in my area they explained it still connected faster on the networks. I tested the both phones at att and at my house. The GS2 connected on average at a 1.2 Mbps while the skyrocket on average was 3.2 Mbps. It was nearly doubled. So even though you may not have LTE in your area you will still see some benefits with LTE technology. However my battery life was even worse on the skyrocket. This is because I am downloading files via torrent on both phones when testing them.
I rooted my phone removed all the crap At&t loaded and also removed some auto starts up applications. Now my phone works very well. Out of box I though it was slow compared the GS2. Now it seems to be working fine and performance wise I cannot tell the difference.
Quadrant scores were very close to the same. Out of box my score on the GS2 was on average 2900 with the sky rocket it was 2500. After freeing up some memory and disabling LTE by connecting to wifi vs LTE to upload my info my scores were anywhere from 34426 to 3633!
Those of you with Skyrocket phones I am curious to know what your quadrent scores are. Here is how I improved my scores and tested between none LTE and LTE connection. I downloaded root uninstaller and removed all the crap Att installed and then downloaded start up manager and ran only a few apps. After a clean reboot I then connected to wifi opended task manager and exited all programs and cleared ram before each test. Ran quadrent 5 times and wrote down my scores (3573, 3429, 3633, 3459, 3426) on wifi. Disconnected wifi and let LTE connect. Cleared ram and cleared programs again then ran the tests on LTE my scores were (3075,2045, 2312, 3104, 2287).
My question to all the developers is can LTE be taking up a lot of the proc speed during benchmark test and this is why people are claiming the SG2 is outperforming the proc in the skyrocket? Also can anyone develop a toggle to turn off LTE? I think this will free up the unnecessary stress on the proc for those who don’t have LTE networks in their area and also increase battery life.
So fare I am happy with the Skyrocket. What I liked is the not so thin rounded back that feels a lot better in the hands while holding in landscape mode. Performance wise I did not notice any difference between the two phones (after tweaking). Battery life the GS2 was better. Connection speed on the skyrocket was nearly doubled even though LTE not available in my area. The screen was noticeably bigger at a first glance compared to the GS2. The mini usb connection is a lot more secure and is not wobbly on the skyrocket, even the displays at the store had a wobbly loose connection. Viewing angle was better on the Skyrocket and it did not have the blueish tint when viewing at a angle like the GS2 did. I go through At&t and the GS2 did not come with a headset, the skyrocket came with a headset as well as a smaller power adapter similar to the square iphone power adapter. I hope this helps those of you trying to decide if you want to buy the GS2 or the Skyrocket. Let me know if you have any questions.
Hello to all.
New Android user here, coming from Iphone 3GS. Finally was eligible for AT&T upgrade, and decided to go Android. Took advantage of the $99 Target deal for the Galaxy S2. I wanted to the skyrocket, but they didn't have it in the store yet. Told me to get the GS2 for now, learn Android in the meantime, and later on swap out for Skyrocket when available. I was afraid of losing my grandfathered unlimited data plan, so didn't want to order online. AT&T was too pricey for the Skyrocket ($249)
So, have the GS2 for now and trying to flatten the Android learning curve. But as I'm in my 30 day window, I am lurking here finding out how you guys like the Skyrocket.
My eyesight isn't getting any better (late 50's) so the bigger the screen the better, but don't want to be trying to put a tablet in my pocket.
Was a jailbreaker on the iphone, and consider myself an old hacker in pc world, so probably will be getting into rooting, and rom's eventually. For now just trying to learn Android without taking on too much at once. I hope the Skyrocket development will pick up like I see for the GS2. No hurry for now!
Don't have LTE in my area yet. But it seems like the Skyrocket does better on HSPA than the GS2. Little nervous reading that AT&T doesn't seem to honor the "unlimited" plans for LTE. And no way to turn it off on the Skyrocket. Maybe this will be possible in future ROMs?
After reading all your informative replies, I believe I am still leaning to swapping out the GS2 for the Skyrocket.
Nice to see that these forums are so active with so many helpful folks!
Nice to be here!!
Another one of these threads....
SGS2 is outdated now. Especially since LTE will be rolling out all over the place next year. My phone is OC'ed to 1.83mhz and I can tell you it is noticeably faster than my old s2. This phone is most likely to get ICS before any other at&t phone also. Out with the old, in with the new.
Skyrocket is superior
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
Global Swag said:
Another one of these threads....
SGS2 is outdated now. Especially since LTE will be rolling out all over the place next year. My phone is OC'ed to 1.83mhz and I can tell you it is noticeably faster than my old s2. This phone is most likely to get ICS before any other at&t phone also. Out with the old, in with the new.
Skyrocket is superior
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ogs2 already has ICS.
Yes a buggy unofficial version
Global Swag said:
Yes a buggy unofficial version
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is true..
I will be keeping my SR... I had them side by side.. and the SR is a superior phone ... all my issues are solved...
I take back all my nasty comments!
I've searched all over the place for an actual comparison of cell phones and the antenna strength they have. Not how much reception they have, or if they lose signal depending on how you hold them, but how strong their internal antenna is.
Example, the Motorola Milestone, from what I understand has two antennas. Blackberry Torch has two as well. At least that is what I've picked up from bits and pieces around the internet. Not sure if accurate.
But, I know for a fact that the Motorola Milestone will have superior coverage compared to my Galaxy S Fascinate. At least -10dbm, and 5asu better. Which equals almost 2 bars. The Blackberry Torch as well. 3 bars better consistently. So, in this day and age of buying unlocked phones, surely there has to be a comparison somewhere to show which phones have stronger antennas, which ones have the two antennas, etc, etc.
And I just can't find it anywhere. Anyone have ideas?
Bravo!
That's a good wake up call
it's true a lot of people are forgetting the phone main function should be "to be a phone"
yet now in days when people talk or compare a phone, is more into competing power, and how entertaining it's
from personal experience i can say as a PHONE, the Moto Milestone XT720 has absolutely the best reception, vs Nexus S, I9000 and SGS2 i9100, HTC devices, etc
on 2nd place i'll put SGS2 T989 as good reception
3rd place goes for all the others phones
Any other response to this, on the spot, question?
Cheers !
K.
AllGamer said:
Bravo!
That's a good wake up call
it's true a lot of people are forgetting the phone main function should be "to be a phone"
yet now in days when people talk or compare a phone, is more into competing power, and how entertaining it's
from personal experience i can say as a PHONE, the Moto Milestone XT720 has absolutely the best reception, vs Nexus S, I9000 and SGS2 i9100, HTC devices, etc
on 2nd place i'll put SGS2 T989 as good reception
3rd place goes for all the others phones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Few months later, and I still say the Motorola Milestone has the best reception I've ever seen.
Still looking for an answer to the original question though. Seems like no one has done any research on it and put together some information.
Virtually the same....
Mobile customers planning to do a cell comparison of phone reception strength are pretty much wasting their time.
The majority of cell phones today are so well designed and competitive that they virtually all deliver the same level of service. Users may notice a difference between carriers due to cell site positioning compared to their homes or offices. The closer the cell site is, the better your phone reception is going to be regardless of which cell phone you utilize. Doing a cell comparison phone reception strength of carriers can be a good idea...
AllGamer said:
Bravo!
That's a good wake up call
it's true a lot of people are forgetting the phone main function should be "to be a phone"
yet now in days when people talk or compare a phone, is more into competing power, and how entertaining it's
from personal experience i can say as a PHONE, the Moto Milestone XT720 has absolutely the best reception, vs Nexus S, I9000 and SGS2 i9100, HTC devices, etc
on 2nd place i'll put SGS2 T989 as good reception
3rd place goes for all the others phones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cause everyone just uses texts now-a-days rather than calling
cpumaster said:
Mobile customers planning to do a cell comparison of phone reception strength are pretty much wasting their time.
The majority of cell phones today are so well designed and competitive that they virtually all deliver the same level of service. Users may notice a difference between carriers due to cell site positioning compared to their homes or offices. The closer the cell site is, the better your phone reception is going to be regardless of which cell phone you utilize. Doing a cell comparison phone reception strength of carriers can be a good idea...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, MOST cell phones are more or less the same within a general 'bar' or two. But there are a few that stand out, like the Motorola Milestone and the Blackberry Torch. I was just wondering if there are others that have similar exceptional antenna strength and reception.
I'd like a list like this to, The Nexus S is terrible.
I've noticed that out of all the phones I have had, Nokia's have the best reception. I still like Symbian over Android, but eh
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
Nokia and Motorola seem to have the best signal strength based on my experience regardless of the "antenna strength " indicator.
+1 for Nokia phones on sym.
the best signal phone are those with antenna in exterior, and those are safer for healthy.
The original Motorola Droid and my current Droid Razr Maxx have the best signal out of all the phones I've ever had. And I'm talking measuring the signal strength with programs not just by bars, as I found them to be inaccurate.
My HTC phones would have to be held a certain way or the signal strength would drop.
Motorola is best for me .
In my experience most Motorola phones have great antenna/signal strength.
For me Nokia always had best signal but nowdays what to do with their usless phones.
If I remember right when the Galaxy Nexus came out people were showing horrible signal strength across the board. So Samsung issued a 'fix' that changed what was previously 2 bars or something to show as 4-5 bars.
To bump this old thread again.
Consistently getting 2 bars would be fine. Probably good enough to call, and for sure good enough to text.
My problem is I get 1 bar maybe inside my home with the Galaxy S, while the Motorola Milestone gets 4 bars.
Is the Galaxy S2 better in terms of reception than the original Galaxy S? I want to upgrade phones anyways. It is a bigger phone than the original Galaxy S, so perhaps it has better reception.
Azure1203 said:
To bump this old thread again.
Consistently getting 2 bars would be fine. Probably good enough to call, and for sure good enough to text.
My problem is I get 1 bar maybe inside my home with the Galaxy S, while the Motorola Milestone gets 4 bars.
Is the Galaxy S2 better in terms of reception than the original Galaxy S? I want to upgrade phones anyways. It is a bigger phone than the original Galaxy S, so perhaps it has better reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try switching modems for galaxy S, I get 1-2 bars using JVU modem and 2-4 bars using JW4.
Mostly all Hi-End Motorola phones have the best antennas but if your a modder, stay away
K...
Well I had an Infuse (HSPA+) and as a lot of people have said, it has a weak antenna and I just sold it. I have a Nokia phone from T-Mobile (dumb phone; unlocked) and it pulls in such great signal. It's a 3g phone(?) though, but we all want/have 4g phones nowadays, right? (I know HSPA+ isn't real 4g, but I my point still stands) The Nokia was a Nokia N... something (can't remember... too lazy to look. ) and in some spots of my house, it easily pulls in five bars consistently and usually constantly stays on 3g while my Infuse was almost always on EDGE and even in some cases, GPRS. That's how bad it was. I'd get lucky to get three bars anywhere in my house with the Infuse, but with the Nokia, I can easily pull 3-5 bars. I know bars don't always mean everything, but with this phone, texts DO go through all the time (and quickly) and call quality is almost always perfect whereas the Infuse constantly dropped signal. The Nokia's kind of a 3g phone (I say that and there was a question mark early on in this post), but occasionally gets "3.5g" (which is most likely HSPA+). Normal 3g is HSUPA while enhanced (HSPA+) 3g is HSDPA. My question is can HSPA+ phones connect to AT&T's HSUPA towers? Or are the 3g towers all one tower? This sounds so basic even to me, but I'm just checking because I'm supposed to be getting a Galaxy S2 soon and I'm hoping its signal is almost (if not, the same) as good as the Nokia phone I'm using. And will I know if it's on HSUPA? The Nokia was usually on 3g, but occasionally said 3.5g and that must mean I don't have a lot of HSPA+ coverage in my area, right? AT&T's maps SAY I'm supposed to have a lot of HSPA+ coverage here though. I trust that the Galaxy S2 will have stronger signal strength?
Tl;dr: If I were to get a SGS2 or even a LG Thrill or Nitro (Definitely not getting them... they're just examples. No one has ever really said these LG phones have weak antennas along with the SGS2 save for wifi, but I don't really care about that.), would they get good HSPA+ signal like how the Nokia N- something gets good 3g signal or what? Not sure if this makes any sense still...
Other unimportant crap and thoughts to self: I used to think AT&T had horrible coverage (because I'd get lucky to get a decent signal with the Infuse), but after using this Nokia, it's the only reason I've convinced myself to get a different phone instead of switching to Verizon, which I KNOW is reliable. I was very impressed with the signal I was getting in the Nokia phone and was quick to decide to sell the Infuse and use the nokia as a temp until I get a SGS2. I saw some SGS2 vs Infuse vids and the SGS2 always had better signal. A lot of people have also said the Infuse had a weak antenna and the SGS2 was only weak on wifi, which I really don't care about at all. Definitely can't wait to get the SGS2 though.
I gotta vent. It's driving me nuts! My girl has my Droid DNA - and just like me when I had it, she gets at least 3 bars of LTE at home. I'm lucky to get ONE BAR of 1X on my M8!!! It's ridiculous! I can barely send text messages from home. They sit there for several minutes with the 'sending' icon. It's so choppy, people are even receiving double or triple text messages. How can one HTC phone have such incredible signal and a newer one have such terrible signal!?
When I get a chance, I'll take a look at the actual signal dB numbers. Regardless of the numbers, though, this phone's service sucks. Other than that, I absolutely love this phone.
aol8mydog said:
I gotta vent. It's driving me nuts! My girl has my Droid DNA - and just like me when I had it, she gets at least 3 bars of LTE at home. I'm lucky to get ONE BAR of 1X on my M8!!! It's ridiculous! I can barely send text messages from home. They sit there for several minutes with the 'sending' icon. It's so choppy, people are even receiving double or triple text messages. How can one HTC phone have such incredible signal and a newer one have such terrible signal!?
When I get a chance, I'll take a look at the actual signal dB numbers. Regardless of the numbers, though, this phone's service sucks. Other than that, I absolutely love this phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's much better than my GNex, but that's not saying much (it had notoriously bad reception). I've only noticed going down to 3G once, which is great for me.
aol8mydog said:
I gotta vent. It's driving me nuts! My girl has my Droid DNA - and just like me when I had it, she gets at least 3 bars of LTE at home. I'm lucky to get ONE BAR of 1X on my M8!!! It's ridiculous! I can barely send text messages from home. They sit there for several minutes with the 'sending' icon. It's so choppy, people are even receiving double or triple text messages. How can one HTC phone have such incredible signal and a newer one have such terrible signal!?
When I get a chance, I'll take a look at the actual signal dB numbers. Regardless of the numbers, though, this phone's service sucks. Other than that, I absolutely love this phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the signal on M8 is much worse than on the DNA (I have access to both), but only at certain angles of the M8.
M8 has a complete solid metal back, which is completely opaque to microwave and radio waves. When you turn the M8 correctly, it gets a better signal. Not by very much but better.
I get the same service I've always had. Full LTE and AWS. Something is wrong with either something that you may have flashed or your phone is defective. Send it back.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using xda app-developers app
You may want to exchange your device, my reception is on par or even better than the Note 3 that I just sold.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Coming from a sgs3... The reception is awesome.
Sent from my HTCM8
My service seems the same if not slightly better in some areas as my old razr HD and razr that my girlfriend has.
sfreemanoh said:
It's much better than my GNex, but that's not saying much (it had notoriously bad reception). I've only noticed going down to 3G once, which is great for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im with you man. I also came from a GNex, and it seems like a lot of other have too.
Its crazy how much better the reception has been with the M8. I had trouble getting any 3G or 4G in my new house with my GNex, even outside. With my m8, I get an average of 3 bars of 4G. And the difference is like that everywhere I go including work. I don't know how I lasted that long on the GNex. I guess I just got used to the crazy bad reception.
That being said, I have always heard that most Motorola phones have some of the best reception. And this was always the case with my older motorola flip phones (E815) also. But I stopped buying motorola phones after the original Droid X bootloader was locked down like Fort Knox, and they said all their newer phones were gonna be like that.
EDIT:
To the person that just sold the NOTE 3. That phone is just like the GNex was. Awful reception. My dad had the phone for two days and returned it. We looked up reviews and saw tons of people complaining about the reception. Which is funny because the Note 2 had a solid reception. My brother uses it and gets great service, as well as all the reviews. Samsung must have dropped the ball on the Note 3 antenna.
I agree with the OP. This handset has noticeably lower signal strength than my old HTC Rezound, and the one my wife currently uses as her personal phone. My M8 is only slightly better than the GNEX she has as a company-provided work phone. Disappointing, actually, as the M8 is a phenomenal device in most other regards.
To be honest though, I've not experienced a single dropped call, as of yet. But, I see data switching to 3G quite regularly. I'm still on the stock ROM, only S-OFF and rooted.
Just to add that coming from the DNA to the M8, I have been extremely happy with reception.
My DNA would consistently drop out at certain points in the city (minneapolis) but my M8 has been solid.
To be honest, I really don't pay a lot of attention to bars, so I couldn't say if I have the same, more or less bars with the M8, but I haven't had any issues with connectivity.
Freedom First said:
I agree with the OP. This handset has noticeably lower signal strength than my old HTC Rezound, and the one my wife currently uses as her personal phone. My M8 is only slightly better than the GNEX she has as a company-provided work phone. Disappointing, actually, as the M8 is a phenomenal device in most other regards.
To be honest though, I've not experienced a single dropped call, as of yet. But, I see data switching to 3G quite regularly. I'm still on the stock ROM, only S-OFF and rooted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If your M8 is only slightly better than a gnex, you have a defective M8. G-nex has the worst reception of any phone I've ever owned, by FAR.
For me in New Jersey, where LTE practically covers the entire state, the M8 gets good reception but my DNA definitely got better reception.
At work in Newark..And I work in a glass building...DNA would be between 96-98 dBm and my M8 is between 102-105.
I'm assuming that's the aluminum casing. Don't get me wrong, reception is great but in marginal signal areas like at home in my basement, dna would hold LTE where M8 will drop to 3g and sometimes 1x
hxdrummerxc said:
Im with you man. I also came from a GNex, and it seems like a lot of other have too.
Its crazy how much better the reception has been with the M8. I had trouble getting any 3G or 4G in my new house with my GNex, even outside. With my m8, I get an average of 3 bars of 4G. And the difference is like that everywhere I go including work. I don't know how I lasted that long on the GNex. I guess I just got used to the crazy bad reception.
That being said, I have always heard that most Motorola phones have some of the best reception. And this was always the case with my older motorola flip phones (E815) also. But I stopped buying motorola phones after the original Droid X bootloader was locked down like Fort Knox, and they said all their newer phones were gonna be like that.
EDIT:
To the person that just sold the NOTE 3. That phone is just like the GNex was. Awful reception. My dad had the phone for two days and returned it. We looked up reviews and saw tons of people complaining about the reception. Which is funny because the Note 2 had a solid reception. My brother uses it and gets great service, as well as all the reviews. Samsung must have dropped the ball on the Note 3 antenna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, my mom's GS3 had similarly crappy reception to my GNex, and Samsung's radios have never had the best reputation, but I heard they've gotten somewhat better. But I guess maybe they reverted back to their old ways with the Note 3...
Don't forget though, while the DX had a locked bootloader (I had a DX as well, it was actually my Android gateway device), it also had a great development community. So with some awesome dev's, even a locked bootloader doesn't mean the device won't be awesome.
Coming from multiple devices such as the Gnex, DNA, Note 3 and now the M8, I think there's more to it than just moving from one phone to another. Yes, HTC is known for better radios than Samsung and having the Note 3 before the M8 I personally witnessed the M8 produce better reception. But I think the issue also stems from the added LTE frequencies that have been added to newer handsets. For example my Note 3 before the AWS roll out performed very good, but once the roll out hit NYC and I started to check if I was connected to band 4 in my handset I began to notice my service between LTE, 3G and 1X fluctuate a lot. At work where I was constantly connected to LTE band 13 before and don't ever remember having 3G, the phone began to connect only to 3G.
Purchasing a new phone such as the M8 that has support for AWS but is weaker may be the result. The Droid DNA only supported Verizon LTE Band 13.
When I'm at work where my DNA had great LTE reception, my M8 seems to be OK - only slightly less signal. I think the problem is worse when the LTE signal is marginal like at my home. It seems that's when the difference is very noticeable. At home, I'd be lucky to get LTE on my older phones (Thunderbolt and Rezound) but the DNA was awesome. LTE all the time at home. I think I was spoiled.
You probably got a defective device, because mine gets signal everywhere I couldn't before.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
Signal
I went from a GNex to an X, and noticed a great signal reception different. I thought the X had great reception, and held with Motorola's reputation for good radios. My M8 has a lot better reception than the X did, far none. Spots where I would have ~1 to 2 bars of 3G, I now have at least 3 at all times. The 4G radio boundary seems to be a lot better than the X had as well. I would agree with what was previously stated, and say you have a defective unit.
Coming from a g2 I consistantly see -5 db better with this device in the same locations.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
The M8 appears to have similar signal reception to the S4. My son loves the M8, so no chance of an objective view there. The new device pixie dust is too strong
I find the following based on comparing:
DNA > i5s > M8/S4 Both the DNA and iPhone 4s have better reception than than the equal M8 & S4. Still not tested the S5 and will not unless they get a 32gb model. That would be my phone.
The worst phone recpetion device I ever owned was the Nokie N600. It was AWFUL and made the GNEX seem like a DNA on steroids. I grew to really "hate" Nokia after that device. Their Windows Phone love solidifies the "hate".
Something quite a few people here are not taking into account is that the M8 is utilizing Verizon's AWS band, whereas the Rezound/DNA are not. Your M8's signal bars are more than likely displaying AWS signal(assuming your area has AWS this will be the case). On a Rezound, your signal bars reflect your 1X signal...which will always be extremely high in most areas. On a DNA you will be seeing the normal LTE band.
If you're trying to compare to older devices like the Rezound, you need to launch a voice call on your M8 before even giving a second thought to the signal bars. To address the DNA...you won't really be able to compare the two devices since the DNA doesn't support the AWS band at all...unless you live in a non-AWS area.
If you do the appropriate comparisons, the M8's signal is great. I hope this helps clear up a lot of the misunderstanding going on in this thread. :good: