Okay, I've dramatically -- dramatically -- improved my signal strength.
1. I placed a Dr. Bott omni-directional antenna at my Airport Extreme Base Station.
2. In the other room, I placed the Airport Express directly behind -- like an inch -- the SB3.
Voila -- signal strength is 100%
So, the question is this: with the Airport Express and the SB3 so close together...would things be even better if I just used an ethernet patch between them? I'm guessing it's six of one and half a dozen of another, but, hey, every little improvement counts!
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Signal Strength: ethernet?:
-
2005-11-20, 19:11 #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 534
Signal Strength: ethernet?:
-
2005-11-20, 19:20 #2
Signal Strength: ethernet?:
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 18:11 -0800, highdudgeon wrote:
> So, the question is this: with the Airport Express and the SB3 so close
> together...would things be even better if I just used an ethernet patch
> between them? I'm guessing it's six of one and half a dozen of
> another, but, hey, every little improvement counts!
I believe, just IMHO etc., that if you can use wire,
you should use wire. I had to drag maybe 40 feet of cat5
from my lan switches to my main stereo room, but I think
it was worth it. For 6", I'd do it.
If nothing else, you can try it and see if it makes any difference.
This is the audiophile list, and we're nuts. Little
things can be important to audiophiles.
--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html
-
2005-11-20, 21:35 #3
It's only going to make any difference if you experience drop outs with wireless (and you shouldn't with 100%). If you don't, then the connection type really doesn't matter.
-
2005-11-20, 21:47 #4This is just telling you the signal strength to the airport express - the link quality from the airport express back to the base station is probably the same as before...
Originally Posted by highdudgeon
-
2005-11-20, 22:45 #5Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Where the noise is coming from
- Posts
- 300
I wonder if these people who say "I cannot put cable" would be networking with cable now if wireless wasn't prime-time? In most cases any expense saved by not buying cable is lost again paying more for a wireless router.
Originally Posted by pfarrell
Not having to spend an hour laying down the cable is probably lost + more messing around with wireless setting (you only have to see these forums).
Your partner might be happier that you haven't put any wires around her house, but then gets fed up when the connection breaks.
Wired is faster too, which again saves time and makes multiplayer gaming etc... better.
Yes we all walk around the garden with our laptop seeing how far it will work, it was fun for 1 or 2 days reading a online newspaper on the toilet but other than in airports, airplanes, public places is wireless really that useful for most people? Is it really comfortable not using a laptop at a desk?
The worst point is if the whole wireless craze hadn't started every new home would probably be built nowdays with just as many network sockets as plug sockets wired for 1000mbps.
-
2005-11-20, 22:55 #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Where the noise is coming from
- Posts
- 300
To me it doesn't either.
Originally Posted by radish
But reading What Hi-Fi and seeing people doing a million things to get just that little extra whilst they go as far as isolating electricity could it be argued that a wireless signal might just be interfering? In fact even a wired cable must be emitting something.
Leave it with them

Reply With Quote
