I think he was simply referring to the fact that Matt, the forum manager over on the Moto forums (who also is "in charge" of soak tests, etc.) was looking into it. Correct me if I'm wrong pc!
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Razr M Antennagate?
- Thread starter zbaba4
- Start date
I think he was simply referring to the fact that Matt, the forum manager over on the Moto forums (who also is "in charge" of soak tests, etc.) was looking into it. Correct me if I'm wrong pc!
Not trying to nitpick PC, but I believe it's 14 days, not 15... I'd just hate to see him walk in on day 15 and them say, "sorry, missed it by a day!"
And z, I don't blame you at all, and again wasn't intending to say that you weren't experiencing something legit. If I was in your shoes, I'd do the same thing. Don't want to use an upgrade on a phone that's going to spend 6 months acting like that if it turns out to be a more complicated fix. Might as well wait until they drop the Maxx to $100 and get another one of those!
u right I believe it is 14 days thanks for the correction.
liftedplane
Gold Member
Why so hostile? Just because you aren't having issues does not mean they don't exist. The op ran the m vs his maxx and still noticed a difference. Therefore there its an issue. Don't come into a thread and accuse people of automatically blaming hardware.
On topic, I'm sorry to hear this is happening, I'm waiting for the note 2 myself or maybe Motorola's new device. Either way hopefully Motorola can fix this.
Sent from my frozenly delicious bionic.
Correct. Plus vzw is very bad at pushing software patches even emergency ones. When they released the tbolt they pushed an ota that sent the already battery hungry phone into bootloops. Despite devs finding a fix within a day it took vzw 3 to 4 months to push a fix. So yeah even if motorola had a fix today vzw would drag their feet to push it. So I would not recommend waiting for it.
To add a bit to this... :frown:
All I have is my wife's iPhone to compare with. 3G dbm's were comparable on both (upper 60s to low 70s). LTE dbm's were on average 10 or so higher than 3G, for whatever that may or may not be worth.
We live within 100 yards of a Verizon tower. I could see how someone in a fringe area, or even farther from a tower, might have an issue with it switching back to 3G too often, especially if you're carrying it without a case. I wish I had a Maxx to test this with, as well, but it appears the M has similar attenuation "issues" to the iPhone. Again, the good part is it's not dropping data altogether, so a software tweak could possibly (?) tell it not to switch back as "easily". You'll probably have to expand these to see the numbers. Sorry about that, each video was taken with the other phone. (Sidenote: the iPhone does a much better job at capturing the true light/colors in the room! )
M:
[video=youtube;H8b6Z8OPZBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8b6Z8OPZBc[/video]
iPhone:
[video=youtube;8MYpRf49w8M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MYpRf49w8M[/video]
All I have is my wife's iPhone to compare with. 3G dbm's were comparable on both (upper 60s to low 70s). LTE dbm's were on average 10 or so higher than 3G, for whatever that may or may not be worth.
We live within 100 yards of a Verizon tower. I could see how someone in a fringe area, or even farther from a tower, might have an issue with it switching back to 3G too often, especially if you're carrying it without a case. I wish I had a Maxx to test this with, as well, but it appears the M has similar attenuation "issues" to the iPhone. Again, the good part is it's not dropping data altogether, so a software tweak could possibly (?) tell it not to switch back as "easily". You'll probably have to expand these to see the numbers. Sorry about that, each video was taken with the other phone. (Sidenote: the iPhone does a much better job at capturing the true light/colors in the room! )
M:
[video=youtube;H8b6Z8OPZBc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8b6Z8OPZBc[/video]
iPhone:
[video=youtube;8MYpRf49w8M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MYpRf49w8M[/video]
Thanks for all the replies since I started this. I have posted this issue on several forums and gotten enough confirmation that it is surely real. A lot of confusion too with people saying they don't drop calls, which of course has nothing to do with the data signal. I called Moto support and they have accepted this to escalate to engineering, I have a case #. They have actually called me back 3 times for more info. I hope this leads at least to at least an acknowledgement if not a fix. I will post the result. If the M sold several million the first week like the iPhone 4, you would hear about it.
I went to a Verizon store today to compare signals myself. The razr M was right next to the og droid razr. 1x and 3g signals were nearly identical. The M's seemed to bounce around between -60 and -70 whereas the og razr's was more consistent at about -65 dBm, but overall both seemed to average mid-60s. This is consistent with many of the posts on forums I have seen suggesting the M gets a solid 3g signal.
4g was unfortunately a different story. The M couldn't pick up a 4g signal at all. I even tried to force lte only, and rather than picking up a 4g signal, it had no signal of any kind.
The og razr, in stark contrast, had a solid and consistent 4g signal of about -75 dBm.
This comparison also seems consistent with reports that the M gets a weak or even no 4g signal at all where other Verizon devices get 4g.
Honestly I was a bit surprised and disappointed that the M was getting nothing where the og razr was getting strong 4g. Maybe it was attributable to a bad SIM or something, but that was my unfortunate experience.
Would still appreciate if people could post comparisons, especially if 4g lte signal strength.
4g was unfortunately a different story. The M couldn't pick up a 4g signal at all. I even tried to force lte only, and rather than picking up a 4g signal, it had no signal of any kind.
The og razr, in stark contrast, had a solid and consistent 4g signal of about -75 dBm.
This comparison also seems consistent with reports that the M gets a weak or even no 4g signal at all where other Verizon devices get 4g.
Honestly I was a bit surprised and disappointed that the M was getting nothing where the og razr was getting strong 4g. Maybe it was attributable to a bad SIM or something, but that was my unfortunate experience.
Would still appreciate if people could post comparisons, especially if 4g lte signal strength.
Just came back from the store. Looked at dbm counters on razr, razr maxx, razr m, galaxy nexus, rezound and S3. The razr, razr max and rezound were all in 66-68 range even when picked up (didn't pick up the rezound). The galaxy nexus and galaxy s3 were both in mid 70s, high 70s when picked up. The razr M was in high 70s to low 80s and mid 80s to low 90s when picked up.
Too bad, I almost ordered it last night, but now I'm definitely waiting till Razr HD comes out.
Too bad, I almost ordered it last night, but now I'm definitely waiting till Razr HD comes out.
Don't fool yourself with those db ratings. A phone with a -80dbm can perform better than another with -70dbm, despite -70 being a stronger signal. There's so many things that go into what is "an acceptable signal strength" that unless you are an amateur radio operator with a thorough understanding of the theory, you'll be lost.
Not to mention alot of the information you need to determine which phone has the "most acceptable signal strength" you will have to obtain by looking up the FCC ID code from the FCC's website. Normally all of the "good meaty stuff" about a cell phone radio (all frequencies) are in documents on the FCC website, but some aren't. Most cell manufacturers do not publicly state the parameters you REALLY want to know to determine which phone has the best reception by submitting another document to the FCC requesting that the information be withheld indefnitely for reasons of "trade secrets". Let's not talk about software issues or how the software can drastically change the outcome of a "good" or "bad" signal.
In short, putting 2 phones next to each other and looking at their db signal strength is no indicator at all as to how well one performs against the other, even if one shows more "bars" or db. Those "bars" are not required to be technically accurate any more than your battery is. Who has owned a phone that drops quickly to like 50%, then takes hours to go to 0%...
This is why I continue to make the arguement in the Bionic forum that you CANNOT ever compare 2 phones and make a determination of which is "superior" just by holding them next to each other. Unless you start doing tests like the FCC does, you can only hope for anecdotal evidence, at best. At worst, it's random chance with a little bit of history on how a particular manufacturer has performed in the past.
Not to mention alot of the information you need to determine which phone has the "most acceptable signal strength" you will have to obtain by looking up the FCC ID code from the FCC's website. Normally all of the "good meaty stuff" about a cell phone radio (all frequencies) are in documents on the FCC website, but some aren't. Most cell manufacturers do not publicly state the parameters you REALLY want to know to determine which phone has the best reception by submitting another document to the FCC requesting that the information be withheld indefnitely for reasons of "trade secrets". Let's not talk about software issues or how the software can drastically change the outcome of a "good" or "bad" signal.
In short, putting 2 phones next to each other and looking at their db signal strength is no indicator at all as to how well one performs against the other, even if one shows more "bars" or db. Those "bars" are not required to be technically accurate any more than your battery is. Who has owned a phone that drops quickly to like 50%, then takes hours to go to 0%...
This is why I continue to make the arguement in the Bionic forum that you CANNOT ever compare 2 phones and make a determination of which is "superior" just by holding them next to each other. Unless you start doing tests like the FCC does, you can only hope for anecdotal evidence, at best. At worst, it's random chance with a little bit of history on how a particular manufacturer has performed in the past.
To the extent you are saying the db numbers are meaningless, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. I think comparing db numbers on phones made by the same manufacturer is a good indicator of signal strength, especially where, as here, there are reports that the phone with the lower db signal has trouble holding on to a 4g signal. I think the combination of the lower db signal plus the practical consequence of dropped 4g connections is extremely strong evidence that the M has a worse 4g signal than at least the razr and the razr maxx.
You do realize that a lower db number is a stronger signal, right? Everything else being equal, -70db is stronger than -73db. Each 3db is a doubling of the signal strength. Technically speaking, -70db is twice the signal strength of -73db.
So you saying that those with a lower db has trouble holding onto a 4g signal is the total opposite of what you should expect. For most consumer equipment, once you get above about -85db you shouldn't necessarily expect(but likely will still receive) good transfer rates or even be able to maintain a connection. Once you hit about -90 you shouldn't be expecting anything for connections. I did see a flip phone in the VZW store 2 weeks ago that was designed for -110 signal! I was impressed. Of course, it was a $200 dumb phone made by....Casio, of all companies.
If you really want to know that 2 phones CAN be compared apples to apples, look up their FCC IDs. If the RAZR M has the same radio characteristics as the RAZR, the paperwork for the RAZR M will basically say "this document is to indicate that the RAZR M uses the same radio as FCC ID: XXXX (RAZR) and is meant as a placeholder only". Then you KNOW you can compare them.
Other than that, trying to compare 2 phones even from the same manufacturer is really not logical at all. You'd notice the difference in measurement between yards and feet, and that's literally what you are comparing by just grabbing 2 random phones from the same manufacturer. Like I said before:
Last edited:
But that's NOT how it works. If you have 40db of signal, but interference is 42db, you're not likely to get ANY signal of any kind. Interference/background noise can be affected by the surroundings, but the design characteristics of the antenna and radio as well as the software will have an impact as to what the phone does. My guess would be that the phones have some kind of algorithm to compare 3G and 4G signal strength along with interference at various frequencies and then tries to negotiate with the tower for whatever the phone or tower thinks is best(as well as available).
So no, you really can't compare them. There's literally nothing you can gain from comparing 2 phones that are different. Even with 2 phones that are the same model but different software, there can be differences. Some of the phones, if you look at the FCCID, actually has multiple revisions as they upgraded the software and changed certain functions.
Really, truely, you cannot compare anything from one phone to the next. The "best" test a consumer can do is doing a speed test on one phone, then the other. Each phone occupies the same physical location and you don't put another phone in close proximity to the phone being tested. Having 2 phones next to each other can cause other problems because one phone broadcasting may cause strong interference for the other phone. You don't see that interference on your db rating though(which is one of many reasons why comparing db is pointless). Of course, this introduces a WHOLE bunch of other reasons why the test is worthless. You're assuming the internet doesn't affect the speed test, something in the environment changes(for instance, a semi truck drives by at the exact instance you are doing a test), etc etc etc.
So again, I'll say it:
If it makes you feel better to look at those numbers, so be it. But they REALLY don't mean what you think they mean. Besides, you never really explained why everyone says that lower numbers are indicative of bad 4G when the exact opposite is true. Just kind of goes to show that those numbers don't mean what people think they mean.
If you're really interested you can find some Amazon books that will teach you a great deal about wireless communication technology. Unfortunately, like I said above, most of the cell phones' radio information is a "trade secret" and not provided by the FCC or any other body, so your only indicator of how well a model performs, on average, is by seeing what people say about the phone. My phone(the Bionic) is terrible at 4G according to many people in the forum. The Bionic allegedly shares the same radio as other phones from the same time frame, yet the Bionic has a reputation for just being awful.
But give up trying to compare those little db numbers on the phone. They REALLY don't tell you anything about how the phone will perform compared to another. A yard isn't the same as a foot, and -70db on one phone is NOT -70db on another. The only thing that number would tell you is if you look at 2 phones that are the exact same model and software version you can figure out which phone is performing better at that moment. Of course, that's not entirely a good indicator because some frequencies travel better than others and each phone likely won't be connected to the exact same frequency. One phone just might have a better frequency at that moment.
Those secret "trade secrets" are REALLY what you want to know. That would tell you exactly which phones will rock and which won't. Ironically, I haven't seen any Motorola phone characteristics at the FCC website, but the iphone 4's are clearly provided. They're pretty darn respectable too! I'd love to see a company compare different cell phones and provide that info to the public. Then we wouldn't be able to argue one phone over another. The tests would make it pretty clear which phones are good which aren't.
I have a 3 foot long wifi antenna(looks like a baseball bat) in my house and I can tell you that I get wifi throughout my entire property, as well as 1/4 mile away.
I know just at thing or two about wireless.
Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to you why your comparison is useless. I don't plan to give you a course in electromagnetic theory and radio properties, and you are convinced that those numbers are actually important and provide "enough" value that a consumer should use them to help determine which phone to purchase.
So no, you really can't compare them. There's literally nothing you can gain from comparing 2 phones that are different. Even with 2 phones that are the same model but different software, there can be differences. Some of the phones, if you look at the FCCID, actually has multiple revisions as they upgraded the software and changed certain functions.
Really, truely, you cannot compare anything from one phone to the next. The "best" test a consumer can do is doing a speed test on one phone, then the other. Each phone occupies the same physical location and you don't put another phone in close proximity to the phone being tested. Having 2 phones next to each other can cause other problems because one phone broadcasting may cause strong interference for the other phone. You don't see that interference on your db rating though(which is one of many reasons why comparing db is pointless). Of course, this introduces a WHOLE bunch of other reasons why the test is worthless. You're assuming the internet doesn't affect the speed test, something in the environment changes(for instance, a semi truck drives by at the exact instance you are doing a test), etc etc etc.
So again, I'll say it:
If it makes you feel better to look at those numbers, so be it. But they REALLY don't mean what you think they mean. Besides, you never really explained why everyone says that lower numbers are indicative of bad 4G when the exact opposite is true. Just kind of goes to show that those numbers don't mean what people think they mean.
If you're really interested you can find some Amazon books that will teach you a great deal about wireless communication technology. Unfortunately, like I said above, most of the cell phones' radio information is a "trade secret" and not provided by the FCC or any other body, so your only indicator of how well a model performs, on average, is by seeing what people say about the phone. My phone(the Bionic) is terrible at 4G according to many people in the forum. The Bionic allegedly shares the same radio as other phones from the same time frame, yet the Bionic has a reputation for just being awful.
But give up trying to compare those little db numbers on the phone. They REALLY don't tell you anything about how the phone will perform compared to another. A yard isn't the same as a foot, and -70db on one phone is NOT -70db on another. The only thing that number would tell you is if you look at 2 phones that are the exact same model and software version you can figure out which phone is performing better at that moment. Of course, that's not entirely a good indicator because some frequencies travel better than others and each phone likely won't be connected to the exact same frequency. One phone just might have a better frequency at that moment.
Those secret "trade secrets" are REALLY what you want to know. That would tell you exactly which phones will rock and which won't. Ironically, I haven't seen any Motorola phone characteristics at the FCC website, but the iphone 4's are clearly provided. They're pretty darn respectable too! I'd love to see a company compare different cell phones and provide that info to the public. Then we wouldn't be able to argue one phone over another. The tests would make it pretty clear which phones are good which aren't.
I have a 3 foot long wifi antenna(looks like a baseball bat) in my house and I can tell you that I get wifi throughout my entire property, as well as 1/4 mile away.
I know just at thing or two about wireless.Anyway, I'm done trying to explain to you why your comparison is useless. I don't plan to give you a course in electromagnetic theory and radio properties, and you are convinced that those numbers are actually important and provide "enough" value that a consumer should use them to help determine which phone to purchase.
AdamaDBrown
New Member
Josh, you might want to climb down off your high horse and stop hijacking the thread. First off, you have the numbers completely backwards. -70 isn't "lower" than -73, because they're negative numbers. Secondly, no, dBm is not a flexible measurement the way you assert: in fact, it's very tightly scientifically mapped to real amounts of input energy. And a lower dBm can be directly correlated to things like poor antenna design or antenna malfunctions, signal processing errors, etc. That's the entire point of dBm as a measurement, to be able to have an exact scale. Third, it is dBm, not "db."
Back on topic: I found this thread after Google searching for signal problems with the RAZR M. I received a demo unit yesterday, and I've been noticing extremely erratic signal strength. I'm still trying to nail down the circumstances. I have noticed specifically that how I hold the phone has produced readings ranging from -93 dBm if held tightly at the bottom, to -66 dBm if I hold it by the top and don't touch the bottom at all. Right now I just checked it, and it's flicking back and forth between -91 and -89. Meanwhile my Droid Bionic and Samsung Stratosphere, held in the same place the same way, are hovering on -80. Repeating the "grip" test on them doesn't produce variances of more than 7 dBm.
I don't have 4G in my home area, but I'll make a point soon of going to one of the nearby towns that does have it to see what the 4G behavior is like.
Back on topic: I found this thread after Google searching for signal problems with the RAZR M. I received a demo unit yesterday, and I've been noticing extremely erratic signal strength. I'm still trying to nail down the circumstances. I have noticed specifically that how I hold the phone has produced readings ranging from -93 dBm if held tightly at the bottom, to -66 dBm if I hold it by the top and don't touch the bottom at all. Right now I just checked it, and it's flicking back and forth between -91 and -89. Meanwhile my Droid Bionic and Samsung Stratosphere, held in the same place the same way, are hovering on -80. Repeating the "grip" test on them doesn't produce variances of more than 7 dBm.
I don't have 4G in my home area, but I'll make a point soon of going to one of the nearby towns that does have it to see what the 4G behavior is like.