| Author |
Which SE phones ( to date ) has the best antennae reception quality? |
cdcjr
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 99
PM |
Hi to everyone!
I am just curious know which among the SE phones in the market today has the best antennae signal? Thanks. 
[ This Message was edited by: cdcjr on 2003-02-26 03:30 ]
[ This Message was edited by: cdcjr on 2003-02-26 03:32 ]
[ This Message was edited by: cdcjr on 2003-02-26 17:01 ] |
|
|
Ah_long
Joined: Jan 10, 2003
Posts: 129
From: Canada
PM |
T39, T39m, or T39mc
the worst is probably the T68i
all SE phones sold out~
farewell T39m Ice Blue, I lovED you. |
Aikonoklast
Joined: Feb 02, 2002
Posts: 363
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2003-02-26 04:40, Ah_long wrote:
T39, T39m, or T39mc
the worst is probably the T68i
|
|
Nope, R520 is better than T39 in this regard... I would even say that the T39 performs rather poorly in this aspect... |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
I don't find the reception of the T68 worse or better than T39 or the Nokia phones I've tried.
I guess most reception complaints are from the US people when using the 1900Mhz band. In the 900 (which is the "normal" GSM) band I find no problems with reception at all. |
shawnmccall9
Joined: Apr 21, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Chicago, IL USA
PM |
-preface: this is going to be an intentionally cruel statement-
NORMAL huh? well, at least you have decided to join a discussion that uses a "normal" language, not like Swedish or anything.
-the point is every country has their own characteristics, none is better than any other |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@ shawnmccall9
This was in no way intented as an insult or anything like that. And if you took it like an insult I'm sorry.
Most of the countries in the world does use 900Mhz for GSM (1800Mhz for the extra band). That is why I called it the "normal" GSM band. So far I only now of U.S/Canada that uses the 1900Mhz band. (The higher frequency does have an impact on the coverage though).
My point was, that the T68 seems to have worse reception on the 1900Mhz band compared to other phones. But on the 900/1800Mhz band it seems to be on par with most other phones.
[ This Message was edited by: ppcrockar on 2003-02-26 16:57 ] |
cdcjr
Joined: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 99
PM |
How about the antenna reception of SE p800 as against the T39? |
jor1ge
Joined: May 28, 2002
Posts: 116
From: Greece
PM |
P800 rf is better than t39.I made the comparison using both units in a low coverage spot.On the other hand i have to say that T39 with the special IAT10 antenna is quite impressive. |
con
Joined: Feb 22, 2003
Posts: 10
From: Greece
PM |
The good old T28 had a great reception!
T39 has also very good reception (used in 1800MHz).
The T600 has a really poor reception (used in 900MHz), which is expected in that size. |
stlblues
Joined: May 21, 2002
Posts: 92
PM |
T68i has lousy reception! |
DeLa
Joined: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From:
PM |
@ con
I'm sorry to disagree. My T600 has excellent reception in 900 Mhz and 1800 Mhz.
In Belgium the network coverage is so dense that it is almost impossible to notice differences between phones. It is no issue of importance when buying a phone.
E.g. a A2628s, R600, T600, Nokia 3310, Siemens M50, Alcatel 310, Alcatel 510 etc. do not show any noticeable difference at the same spot where reception is tricky.
Apart from that I find the T39x one of the most beautiful phones ever made and technologicaly the most advanced at its time of release and maybe even today. Too bad this masterpiece is out of the collection. It beats any phone today, even the T600, in style and waw-factor.
|
mrj82
Joined: Sep 26, 2002
Posts: 256
From: Mississippi, USA
PM |
My T28 world (1900mhz) picks up 1 more bar then my T68i ever did. I get great signal strength with, so much it suprises me even  . By far better then any nokia I ever had too. |
Caveman
Joined: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 168
From: Cambridge, UK
PM |
Just a thought, but doesn't it depend on which service provider you use ? Some areas will be better than others on a particular network. |
shawnmccall9
Joined: Apr 21, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Chicago, IL USA
PM |
@ ppcrockar
I may have been too hasty also, my apologies. Caveman appears to have identified the problem: Network infrastructure. Almost synomous with GSM 1900, the USA providers have created notoriously weak infrastructure with regard to tower placement. I cannot speak to GSM 1900 providers in other countries in the Westen hemisphere. GSM 1900 would work well if the service providers had placed their towers correctly. Currently, two companies, Cingualr and ATT are converting many of their old standard, TDMA 1900, towers, to GSM 1900 or GSM 850 (although ATT is currently more focused on developing their WCDMA-UMTS contract with DoCoMo). GSM 850 has many of the advantages of GSM 900, notably better wave propogation through objects and longer effective distances. |
ppcrockar
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@ shawnmccall9
Yes, that was what i meant. And with the 850Mhz band the problems with the higher frequency (as you mentioned wave propagation through objects) will disappear (or at least be the same as the 900Mhz). The tower placement is even more important on the 1900Mzh band than on the 900Mhz band beacause of the worse wave propagation through objects.
Also I don't know how well the T68 handles the 1900Mhz band as I've never tried it. It is just that most people complaining about the reception comes from north america, so my guess is that the T68 could be worse than other phones on the 1900Mhz band.
[ This Message was edited by: ppcrockar on 2003-02-27 15:06 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2003-02-26 04:29
