WiWavelength

Yinzes should know that Cricket don't work aht dere at Kennywood. AJ

From 15 years on Sprint, I have used nine different handsets -- eight of which I still possess. Currently, I have two active handsets. A Nexus 5 for my lines on Sprint postpaid and T-Mobile prepaid. And a 2014 Moto X for my line on Republic Wireless MVNO. AJ

Just to be clear, note my parenthetical disclaimer. I listed the current flagships in release order, not in hierarchical voice performance order. But it may be coincidence that the iPhone 6 models are at the top of the list, the Samsung Galaxy S6 models at the bottom of the list. Either way, I am not a good expert to ask about CDMA1X voice performance -- I make and take so few calls these days. Plus, with single RF path and e/CSFB, my handset(s) idle on LTE basically all of the time. Barring a rare blip to CDMA1X and/or EV-DO in an elevator or a basement, tri band LTE is the status quo. AJ

What're yinz doin' postin'? Shouldn't yinz be dahn at da Eat'n Park? AJ

Not necessarily. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are on a separate RF chain from the cellular airlinks, so the two paths are not connected, do not share the same antennas. The FCC OET testing docs do disclose Wi-Fi and Bluetooth EIRP, but we generally do not examine those filings nor include their figures in our articles -- simply because reader interest in cellular performance is much greater. AJ

I will use my setup as an illustration. I have my main router, a current generation 802.11ac AirPort Extreme, at the front of the house by the cable outlet and modem. I have my second router, an older generation 802.11n AirPort Extreme, at the back of the house by a window facing the backyard. The second router connects as a client to my main router via 5 GHz 802.11n. Since both routers are 3x3 MIMO, the max MCS index between them supports 450 Mbps -- plenty fast. Additionally, because the second router is on my desk in the kitchen, I can use its Ethernet ports for my NAS drives and a cheap Windows laptop that I do not want on my Wi-Fi network. Never underestimate the fringe benefit of additional Ethernet ports in other parts of the house. AJ

You seem like you would prefer a different solution. Why? A second router set to join your current Wi-Fi network is likely your easiest and cheapest option. You should be able to accomplish that for $100. AJ

I probably will get reamed for this. And I do not know if it is apocryphal or true. But the joke about the woman driving and complaining of sluggish acceleration and funny smell -- all because the parking brake unknowingly has been engaged for weeks -- does make me chuckle. AJ

Remarkably, this HD Radio discussion bears many parallels to that of VoLTE. AJ

Yinz would like that, wouldn't yinz? AJ

Maybe maximus is astroturfing for iBiquity now, too. AJ

I will be happy to offer some thoughts, but I would not direct the question only to me. Others, too, should share their observations. First, I would consider the following to be the current Sprint flagship handsets (in order of release): iPhone 6 iPhone 6 Plus Nexus 6 LG G Flex 2 HTC One M9 Samsung Galaxy S6 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge Since you are posting this query in the Samsung Galaxy S6 thread, I assume that you are weighing its voice performance. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that incoming CDMA1X voice is now linked to LTE data for single RF path handsets because of e/CSFB. So, if LTE data performance is weak, that will not cause dropped calls, but it may cause missed calls -- unless you are willing to set the handset to a CDMA1X/EV-DO only mode. AJ

The issue is not with the device. Plenty of current handset variants on VZW, AT&T, and T-Mobile support VoLTE. The original FCC OET filings or Class II Permissive Change filings indicate so. Sprint just has not made VoLTE a priority -- probably because VoLTE coverage is poor in comparison to CDMA1X coverage. And until Sprint makes VoLTE a priority, the device will be irrelevant. VoLTE support is a network issue. So, do not get hung up on whether X device will be VoLTE capable. AJ

I think you misinterpret my post. I have little patience for women AND electronics together -- that is why I keep them separate. But I have plenty of patience for women. And I have plenty of patience for electronics. Individually. Now, it may be a stereotype that women mistreat electronics. But every stereotype begins with a kernel of truth. And if you do not believe me, come spend some time on a college campus. Watch women putting iPhones in their back pockets and sitting on them, dropping them right and left as if they were hot potatoes, chucking them carelessly like spare change into their sharp object filled purses, etc. Women are worse than men in those regards -- because women generally are smaller, are less coordinated, and view technology as a means to an end. Some men are inattentive, too, just not to the same degree as women -- because many men view their electronics as their precious toys. In the end, show me a woman with a year old handset that has experienced daily use and is still in top notch condition. The odds of that are slim to none. Meanwhile, my handsets are practically pristine, just like the day I bought them. AJ

To say that our article included "warnings" would be a bit strong. I would rather say that we published full disclosure comparisons and advisements. Then, potential buyers can make up their own minds. And, for some, a new Samsung Galaxy handset is always "the next big thing," so they are going to get it, no matter what. As for RF testing, yes, it gets no or only a cursory mention in most published reviews. An additional problem is that a reviewer usually is sampled only one variant. The odds of that being the Sprint variant are about one in four -- at best. More likely, the review is of an international variant or AT&T variant, rendering relevance to Sprint practically zero. As we know, different variants exhibit different RF performance on different bands. So, even if a Samsung Galaxy S6 review includes some signal testing of an AT&T variant, that means nothing to a Sprint user. AJ

Since your wife broke her handset, why not let her handle this mess? Or maybe she should have not broken her handset in the first place. Generally speaking, women and handheld electronic devices are terrible together. Women sit on them, drop them, throw them, and just abuse them. I like women. And I like electronics. But that is why I keep the two separate -- because I have little patience for women and electronics. AJ

For that, you will have to wait for the maroon G5. AJ

Yeah, band 26 performance is not the concern. Those figures are fine. But band 25 is just okay, and band 41 is flat out poor. AJ

I cannot speak for them, but I believe that some are calling it a "lemon" not only because of the bugs but also because of the step backward in raw RF performance. AJ

The irony in your last statement is that you are discounting the observations of many others in favor of the observations of you and your wife. "A few people's observations are not indicative of the entire user experience" could be directed right back at you. Regardless, RF ERP/EIRP is not subjective -- it is quantitative. In our S4GRU article, we showed that the Galaxy S6 lab measurements did not compare well to those of its predecessor and its competitor. Now, real world measurements show likewise. That is not debatable. AJ

Lower signal strength figures, not higher. AJ

Does a third party ROM package then typically or even necessarily include a version of the stock baseband firmware? The reason I ask is this: Nexus 5. It is a quintessential example, having gone through numerous baseband firmware revisions from Qualcomm. Some revisions have performed better on Sprint than have others. And the shoe may be on the other foot on other operator's networks. If a stock baseband firmware revision is included in a third party ROM, who is to decide which one? Maybe I am off base here, but could that not affect RF performance? AJ

It still could be a device issue. You could have gotten two subpar devices in a row. Or you could have installed two problematic ROMs in a row. Either way, several others with stock devices need to corroborate your experiences. As factually stated, dropping LTE at -105 dBm RSRP is not common. If that happens for others, then the network in that area is somehow fakakta. AJ

I am not suggesting that developers are modifying baseband firmware. But they sure can alter, add, or remove parts of stock firmware that could then unintentionally affect RF performance. I stay away from alternative ROMs like the plague. They are completely unnecessary. And maybe my recollection is faulty, but I seem to recall reports of alternative ROMs sometimes causing connectivity issues on certain devices on certain networks. If you have experience that no alternative ROM has ever affected any RF performance parameter, please offer it. That is not asking you to prove a negative, just to say honestly that you have not encountered that nor heard of it yourself. AJ

I cannot answer that -- not my area of expertise. Maybe Robert or Tim can chime in on the planning and implementation for optimization. But lack of optimization does not mean that LTE will drop at -105 dBm RSRP, for example. It just means that particular signal level will occur at a smaller cell radius than it will after optimization. AJ