Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47

Thread: Which phone out now has the best reception??

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    GTA
    Posts
    410
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant (NAM) + 16GB MicroSDHC
    Carrier(s)
    Fido
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'd recommend the N80.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    The Nokia 6010 has awesome reception compared to any other phone I've used. I have a Motorola RAZR that gets one bar off and on where I live. It always drops calls and has terrible clarity. I put my sim into an old Nokia 6010 and it was like a dream come true. 3 bar signal, perfect clarity and never drops calls. Not to mention the battery life on the phone lasts forever. I can barely make it through the day with my crap RAZR phone.


    Whoever in here said all phones are equal in theory is full of crap. If your signal sucks where you live go get a Nokia 6010 and you will be set. I don't think any retail stores sell them anymore so you will have to buy it online.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    194
    Device(s)
    lumia 640, lumia 650, coolpad rouge for chromecast
    Carrier(s)
    cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by louismz
    The Nokia 6010 has awesome reception compared to any other phone I've used. I have a Motorola RAZR that gets one bar off and on where I live. It always drops calls and has terrible clarity. I put my sim into an old Nokia 6010 and it was like a dream come true. 3 bar signal, perfect clarity and never drops calls. Not to mention the battery life on the phone lasts forever. I can barely make it through the day with my crap RAZR phone.


    Whoever in here said all phones are equal in theory is full of crap. If your signal sucks where you live go get a Nokia 6010 and you will be set. I don't think any retail stores sell them anymore so you will have to buy it online.
    i have a nokia 3595 and it looks just like the 6010. what is the difference between them?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    7,058
    Carrier(s)
    • Verizon Wireless •
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I've had my share of Nokias, Sony Ericssons, Motorolas, Sanyos, Samsungs, and more...and will agree that the Nokias, and some of the latest Motos (V8/V9) are pretty stellar performers in the reception wars...

    But, I have truly been totally blown away by the reception from my BlackBerry devices...almost across the board, the 83xx Curve being the best so far. RIM puts a hell of a phone radio in their product!!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    hi guys I am in between phones and i have had a few friends lend me some phones and every single one has died... I had a samsung raven and it worked great until it lost its back then i was drunk and threw it cause i was pissed. but now i have used i think four different phones... 2 razors both have crapped out on me, one garbage lg walmart-like phone that was intended for a midget to use, and i cant remember the other. I would just like a suggestion for a new phone that will get good reception, user friendly, and will stand the test of time. And my service provider is AT&T/Cingular. Feel free to pm me as well.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    Feedback Score
    0
    I now have a Vodafone NL Nokia 2310, not many functions but it has about 3-5 bars all the time!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6
    Device(s)
    Nokia 3120
    Carrier(s)
    Vodafone
    Feedback Score
    0
    Can't say I've had much experience using many other phones out there, but, both my Nokia 6120/3120 has never fallen below 4 bars in terms of reception.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'll second that Moto e815 with VZW. But I just had to have the Palm Treo. WTF. Texts good and I don't talk that much anyway.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    8,782
    Device(s)
    LG Nexus 4
    Carrier(s)
    Wind
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by davistld01
    I've had my share of Nokias, Sony Ericssons, Motorolas, Sanyos, Samsungs, and more...and will agree that the Nokias, and some of the latest Motos (V8/V9) are pretty stellar performers in the reception wars...

    But, I have truly been totally blown away by the reception from my BlackBerry devices...almost across the board, the 83xx Curve being the best so far. RIM puts a hell of a phone radio in their product!!
    The reception on my Pearl is noticably worse than my E62, by about 60-70 feet underground.
    The word 'Pentaband' means '5 Bands', from the Greek word 'pente' meaning '5'. For a phone to be pentaband it has to support 5 bands. If the phone has AWS support, it doesn't automatically mean that it is pentaband.

    Don't send me PMs for questions that can be asked publicly.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    267
    Feedback Score
    0

    Exclamation

    [QUOTE=meatballs]Actually, it is right. Theoretically. Also theoretically, load speeds for internet are 2.4 ghz, when really they are 300-500 kb. QUOTE]

    I just happen to browse some old messages and I found this that requires reply if someone didn't do it before.

    GHZ is a mesuare of the frequency not a measure of speed
    kbps is a mesure of speed

    So whatever point you wanted to make ,I guess, has not valid foundation.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    267
    Feedback Score
    0

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Mogawa
    hi guys I am in between phones and i have had a few friends lend me some phones and every single one has died....
    My deep condolences. I will never lend a phone to you because I want to live.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    194
    Device(s)
    lumia 640, lumia 650, coolpad rouge for chromecast
    Carrier(s)
    cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    [QUOTE=Pinguino1]
    Quote Originally Posted by meatballs
    Actually, it is right. Theoretically. Also theoretically, load speeds for internet are 2.4 ghz, when really they are 300-500 kb. QUOTE]

    I just happen to browse some old messages and I found this that requires reply if someone didn't do it before.

    GHZ is a mesuare of the frequency not a measure of speed
    kbps is a mesure of speed

    So whatever point you wanted to make ,I guess, has not valid foundation.
    phones lie tou you too about that stuff. it makes the phones and service look good if they do.
    http://www.dansdata.com/gz084.htm

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HolyMoto
    Customers always ask this question and I always give the same response, all power levels on mobile phones are regulated by the FCC. In theory, they all have the same reception capabilities. How a phone performs in the field has to do with location, coverage, topography, weather conditions, and the actual network it's on. I know some phones on our network perform better than others, but it is purely based on consumer feedback. And a lot of it is contradicting.

    For instance, the majority of our customers may say the 6015 performs the best, but that would be because it is our most popular selling phone. And not because it has the best reception, but because it is the least expensive model we sell.
    Perchance anyone really wants to know the solution from the engineering side of things (signal processing and rf). Although POWER of antenna broadcasting is limited by the FCC. There is still infinite flexibility within an individual phone's design. If you're asking yourself which phone to get based on reception: be more specific. Do you want to hear better? Do you want less dropped calls? Do you want better internet service?

    One phone will get you great call quality (reception and broadcast), but drop calls frequently. It's minimum connection bandwidth may be too high for you if you're in a rural area, but if the network is strong around you, you'll think it's the best phone ever (for reception).

    On the other hand, a different phone may have full bars and you can't really understand what your mom is telling you from her land-line. She can hear you just fine because your voice is going through a fantastic digital network that can automatically parse your voice away from that of a moving freight train five feet away from you, (The math involved here is gorgeous and cannot be done on an analog signal) but you can't seem to hear her all that great even after mashing your phone into your ear and trying to find that "sweet spot". Moral of this one: from phone to phone bars don't mean much.

    So to find the best solution for you talk to people who talk on the phone where you will be and don't ask them about bars, ask them about 1) other people hearing them well (broadcast quality for phone given set area), 2) them hearing other people well (antenna sensitivity for phone given area), and 3) dropping them (a number of factors).

    So yes, phone broadcast POWER is set by the FCC, but the sensitivity of a particular phone's antenna (you hearing others or surfing the web) may vary greatly and gobs of other factors in a phone will affect "call quality" in a way that you and your neighbor disagree on.

    Have fun with this one.

    Ever notice the other end sounding far away? The frequency range has been limited. It's the same POWER focused in one area to account for weak signal amplitude.

    Also, don't be confused by my use of the word signal. Everything is a signal.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    63
    Device(s)
    Nokia n95
    Carrier(s)
    Robbers
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoki
    Both great phones... I've had the S710a and K750i. But I found the RF better on the K750i... not to mention the camera is fabulous for a phone. But why bother with them now? They're old... wait for the K790 if you want SE.
    PM me if you are looking for s710a ... I have one that needs a new home.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,513
    Device(s)
    Nokia E72
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    Why does it seem like the cheaper nokia dumb phones get the best reception? People always talk about the 6010, 3595, or 2610 getting the best reception. Is it because of the cheaper plastics used? Less internal hardware to get in the way of the antenna? I can honestly say I have noticed a difference between my N79 and the 2610 for not only holding a signal, but having a better quality connection.

    Maybe the moto guy is right when it comes to consumer opinion. Most power users care about many other features than just rf. The bulk of people in the US just want a cheap phone that works. So, with a greater number of people talking about the rf of the cheap phones you get the idea generated that these phones actually have better reception.

    I still think Nokia is the best for rf, but maybe I'm mistaken.
    “The key to knowing the will of God is to have no will of your own." - George Mueller

    My Feedback

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks