Sammy radio quality Vs Moto

[rage151]

Not to be a jerk here, but no where in that thread does anyone give any reasoning as to why motos are the best. In the post quoted the guy only says because they have been doing in longer. That excuse dried up at most 5 years after other manufactures entered the market. I have heard people talk about patents they dont understand and claims of real world use similar to mine of motos being better, but never have i seen any real testing data laboratory or real world that proves any of the claims of the internet. I would think that if moto really was better they would be doing their own testing and hiring independents to do the same and the plastering it all over the place. The are not doing this, so either A)They did the testing and it was false, or B)They are too stupid(which may be the case sense they just were acquired). Both of these are reason enough to shy away.

I actually like moto products, but untruthful claims and generalities rule the web and i like to stamp out what i can. Lets not turn into the apple community and just automatically assume things that manufactures and fans claim are true.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T

Sure, I see your point and I'm not trying to be a jerk either. Like another poster, my cell phone experience starts well before Android. I too had the E815, and before that - the T720 (which was a horrible phone, but the signal quality was awesome). I've had other brands and friends with other brands too. Moto simply always did better. You are more than welcome to say which of the brands you've owned seemed to have the best reception too.

The author of the linked article, I would venture to say, has a significant amount of experience and knowledge in reference to cell phones/networking. He voiced his opinion and seemed credible to the extent that he is someone I don't know personally.

I don't think there is any need to burden yourself with stamping out the untruthful claims and generalities. We are not convincing everyone that our opinion is fact. Most readers here know the difference.

 

[rage151]

moto has better reception? there are some moto phones with signal issue and they all had low sar rating (like moto razr2).

when you're in poor signal area(rural area), phone will increase power level of antenna to get better reception. so it will emit higher radition.
low sar rating phones put lower limit on this so people in those area would get poor reception.
moto smartphone have high sar ratings (1.4~1.5) also rezound have 1.2 while 1.6 is the law allowed.
samsung smartphones have low sar ratings (0.2~0.7) so whoever had issue with signal before, i think they'll have same issue with S3.

That's a good observation! I think I see a correlation between SAR/phones & good reception: CNET SAR Ratings

I just hope that Samsung's new configuration for the S3 radio doesn't fully align with my perceived correlation...

 

[jroc]

Speaking generally...

The "fact" that moto has the best radios is becoming more and more of a myth. My rezound has bested several newer motos including several razrs and a bionic in both signal strength and data speed in both high and low service areas.

That being said however, Samsung has a bad habit of using radios that are not worth the plastic they are cased in. I'm not saying that the s3 will be the same, but the track record does not look very good. It's really a toss up these days and is model and individual phone specific

Sent from my ADR6425LVW

See....Samsung's track record says something...so does Motorolas...lol. We cant accept one and dismiss the other. But I agree its a crapshoot now a days for a decent working phone. And just like Samsung cant hit a home run every time at bat...neither can Motorola.

Again...there is a reason I still use my RAZR as my daily phone. Its either I have extremely good luck with Moto phones...or other phones just arent as good at specific things. Its one or the other...lol. One reason I have a family plan now is that I can do extended side by side comparisons. But our experiences dictate how we see things so....it is what it is...

 

[Ry]

There's a reason why my cell phone timeline looks like this: http://forums.androidcentral.com/showthread.php?t=181203

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Android Central Forums

 

[dpham00]

That's a good observation! I think I see a correlation between SAR/phones & good reception: CNET SAR Ratings

I just hope that Samsung's new configuration for the S3 radio doesn't fully align with my perceived correlation...

Max SAR for the S3 is 1.29.

 

[jamisont]

Max SAR for the S3 is 1.29.

Stat i mentioned was the figure on head portion where it matters most. No one put their phone on ear when they're using bluetooth.
Phone manufacturers moved antenna to lower part of phones to reduce sar rating on head part, that caused reception issue.

If i remember correctly high head sar rating moto phones have lower body sar rating, that means they still put antenna on top portion of the phone.

Samsung came up with dual antenna to make up poor reception issue when antenna is moved to lower portion of the phone for SGS2. (Iphone 4s also have dual antenna to fix reception issue.)
Antenna on bottom receive and send signal while antenna on top only receives signal.

 

[rage151]

Max SAR for the S3 is 1.29.

Wow! That is pretty high in comparison to previous Samsung phones. In the CNET list, Samsung has 13 of the 20 lowest-radiation cell phones. They have none listed in the top 20 - but the S3 looks close.

Ok, so if the "higher the SAR = better reception" theory holds true, the GS3 should not be a slouch!

Thanks for finding that number, dpham. I looked for awhile and couldn't find it anywhere.