xeene
Gold Member
Have you tried Verizon HD voice yet? It's pretty amazing how clear it sounds.Don't decide on one phone or the other by the number of bars of signal that are displayed There is no "standard" that says each bar represents a specific signal level. Some manufacturers may use different amounts of signal level to indicate one, two, three, four, and five bars. Number of bars is a"relative" indication of signal level and should only be used as a reference guide for that phone only and not as a comparison.
Also dBm of signal isn't necessarily a good comparison either unless we're comparing two of the same devices. Different radios (i.e. different manufacturers), can perform differently even if receiving the same dBm of signal. Signal level is only a part of the equation. Quality of signal is far more important than level or dBm. For instance my MAXX right now has only 2 bars of 4G/1G, and is at 115 dBm of 4G but is at 91 dBm of 1G.
2 bars would for most be considered relatively poor signal level however, with a clean signal (good performing radios), even low signals can carry more data faster and longer. The only real way to compare is side by side phone calls and side by side speed tests while noting dBm on both phones, and across various signal conditions.
Also as I've said before, even a mediocre radio can perform well if it has a good antenna. Antennas are a critical part of radio transceivers and can be the deciding factor between a clean signal and successful communications and a dirty, distorted, multipath signal that hinders proper communication.
Everyone knows I'm a Motorola fanboy so what I'm about to say may not come as a surprise to most, however there is plenty of real world fact and history behind my claim. Motorola is King in the world of radio frequency transmission and reception and in the realm of antenna technology. Just open nearly any first responder's vehicle and look at the name in their radio. Look at the one they carry on their belt or in their pocket. Look at the radios the US military branches carry. Look at the radios used to communicate in space exploration by NASA. I'm going to bet that the overwhelming majority will be Motorola.
That said, successful communications and data transmission/reception with less than the best radios and antennas can happen for most in good coverage areas. Where a good communications system outshines one that isn't so good is in fringe areas of coverage, and in locations with high levels of RF interference. In these extreme conditions is where a top quality transceiver and antenna system is mission critical and the reason why Motorola is the radio of choice for more military and first response teams than any other.
Often we forget these smartphones we carry now are still first and foremost transceivers, phones if you will. The quality of the call, the clarity of voice transmission should be something we hold high when choosing one over another. There is only one problem. Most of us don't do test calls to a land line and listen to how we sound on the other end. Some of the lousiest sounding calls I received are consistently those from iPhones and Samsungs. So bad in fact that I can almost tell someone what phone they are on when they call me. By contrast calls from Motorola phones are often so clear and crisp that I mistake them for land line calls.
Try it yourself. Give your phone to someone else and have them call you on a land line. Then listen to the caller and note how clear and easy they are to understand. Are they muffled? Can you tell s from f or t from p in their voice? How natural do they sound? Do they sound good in your mind? If not, then you won't sound good to others.
I have yet to have someone tell me they can't understand what I'm saying or to have them mistake the word suck for something far less appropriate. When I spell my name to people on the other end they don't question whether it's a t or a p in my last name. Unfortunately nobody seems to do these kinds of tests when reviewing cellular phones today. If they did, I think we might find some very different results than what we might expect.
(as would I with those numbers) 
