: BlueBull April 11, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
Recently purchased the WZR-HP-AG300H. I am running the stock dd-wrt that was on the device: DD-WRT v24SP2-MULTI (12/17/10) std (SVN revision 15940). on the 2.4ghz radio The transmit power is set to 20dbm (100mw). The issue is that the AG300H is reducing tx power to somewhere between 10 and 16 dbm which is shown on the Sys-info tab and is evident by the reduction of coverage in my house. Is there any way to get tx power to stay at what it is set?
: KingJL April 11, 2011, 10:30:39 AM
This is a common situation with all of the dd-wrt builds for the Atheros based Buffalo HP units. This was reported for the other models 6 months ago. Buffalo claims that they are working with DD-WRT on this issue. But, I follow the DD-WRT 'Timeline' (list of all tickets and change sets), and I have seen no activity addressing this issue. It appears as if the DD-WRT is defaulting to the "World" regulatory domain and ignoring the "FCC" regulatory domain setting (supposedly set with the US country code setting). This is either a problem with the DD-WRT Atheros drivers or the Buffalo "Board/Radio Configuration/Calibration". It would be nice to see some progress on this issue. It is being ignored by DD-WRT and needs some Buffalo attention. It is a shame, these Buffalo's have so much potential!
: buddee April 11, 2011, 05:08:24 PM
Nope, no way to get it to stay at 20dBm, and the best i could ever get an AR7161 with dd-wrt to transmit at was 17dBm. As KingJL mentioned, but i will go ahead and clarify, the madwifi driver that dd-wrt uses doesn't seem to let you control the Tx power settings, it will say it does, like if you go into advanced wireless settings and bump it up to say 21, then apply that, then look in wireless>status, it will say its at 21, but its not really, if you measure your signal with something like inSSIDer, it won't show any increase and it should. And i don't see that being solved anytime soon, the ath9k driver is still to new and under-developed, so no implementation at this time or like i said, anytime soon.
Believe me, i know your frustration in this matter, because i have a WZR-HP-G300NH, according to reports and stats, its max dBm is supposed to be @ 26-28, i never see anything near that with dd-wrt, i can with stock firmware, just not dd-wrt, but the way i have my setup, i prefer to use dd-wrt, because its more feature filled.
: BlueBull April 13, 2011, 12:56:49 PM
I was hoping with the AG300H that some of the issues might have been corrected from the prior 300 series routers. As far as i can tell any field that can flucuate on the status page is far from accurate. What is more rediculous is the TX power isnt even accurate for what is occuring. The router appears to be selectively choosing how much bandwidth to provide based on amount of traffic requested/sent for more that 1 minute. See below.
this is what i got from buffalo support:
Log into the router and go to " Wireless " and than underneath it " Basic Settings " under there you can go to Channel Width and change that to Turbo 40 MHZ. Also you can try changing the wireless channel to something the will get you less interference from other wireless devices in the area. If you have any other problems please contact our tech support for furhter assistance.
and my reply...
I moved the settings to turbo under NG-mixed. I have also used both auto and manual channel selection. My neighbors are far enough away that I can occasionally see them at -90 to -80 db. I have actually gone so far as to turn all wireless equipment (excluding laptop/wifi analyzer) and the power breakers in the house off except the office. I have tried every possible combination of antenna chains, antenna gain, Ack timer, and TX power. I have exhausted a number of wifi and dd-wrt forums. The best the router can display for 2.4 ghz is 13dBm power with a rate of 130Mb/s an a -2db signal fluctuation. This is constant regardless of idle or active traffic.
I have included some basic examples of what I am seeing below. It almost appears as if some adaptive radio management or power save feature is in place. Only after trying to pass a decent amount of data (streaming, large file xfer, multiple web pages) for at least 1 minute does the router seem to boost the radio signal to provide more that 5 Mb/s.
: buddee April 13, 2011, 07:01:24 PM
Hrm well, with that unit, what was the default antenna chains set to? IIRC, its a 2x2 MIMO setup on the WZR-HP-AG300H, so it probably should be set at 1+2 | 1+2 And also, for your wireless security, are you using WPA2 with AES?
: BlueBull April 13, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
Yeah it came with 1+2/1+2. After all of the combo trial and error 1+2/1+3 gives the most stable highest signal of them all. I am using WPA2 Personal (not mixed) with AES only
: squirrelly April 17, 2011, 12:02:40 PM
Can this be resolved by using a dd-wrt build instead of dd-wrt/buffalo? I just bought one too because I liked the power of the whr-hp-g54 I have owned and what's the point if its not HP.
As a side note, I have a Cisco E3000 which I thought that the WZR-HP-AG300H would be superior to and so far, I am not impressed.
: glenb7 April 17, 2011, 01:46:07 PM
try openwrt from a snapshot/trunk build. i get 501mw power. 27dbm power. i am in us. wireless has good coverage and is stable, much more so than my asus rt-n16 using tomato.
: BlueBull April 17, 2011, 05:31:51 PM
I looked at the openwrt builds in that line, but only saw the G300, not the AG300
: squirrelly April 24, 2011, 12:03:11 PM
It's here: ftp://dd-wrt/others/eko/BrainSlayer-V24-preSP2/2011/04-09-11-r16785/buffalo_wzr-hp-ag300h
here are the instructions from Dave:
| From: | ||
| To: | ||
| Posted: | Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:02 pm | |
| Subject: | Re: WZR-HP-AG300H |  |
| Hey ya sorry for the multi posts. I'm going to repost my info to you but I'll add in a couple lines to try and increase clarity. Let me know. It was VERY easy to do this, just make sure your computer has nothing else running when you actually start flashing the router... 1. Search and enter the "BRAINSLAYER build 16785" thread in the DDWRT Forum. Find the link inside the first post which brings you to the downloads section. 2. Find Buffalo, then find WZR-HP-AG300H, then you should HOPEFULLY be seeing two files with similar names. 3. Download the "wzr-hp-ag300h-dd-wrt-webupgrade-MULTI.bin" file to your computer...MAKE SURE you got the correct one and that it is build 16785. 4. hook up LAN-ethernet cable to your computer and router, make sure to shut off ALL other connections... that means kill your laptop wireless probably 5. Open internet explorer (not firefox or anything else) 6. login to router at 192.168.11.1 using whatever username and password you've created 7. go to Admin tab, go to Default Settings tab, reset router to factory default and give it a couple mins. After about 5 minutes of sitting there, the router will have been reset to complete factory settings. Refresh the internet page. 6. log back into router once it reboots (it will have the stock username/password again) 7. navigate to "Administration" tab in router, go into "Upgrade Firmware" tab 8. select "reset after upgrade" option, then click "browse" and find your "webupgrade" file on your computer 9. Hit "upgrade" button, DON'T TOUCH A THING for about 5 mins or unless it explicitly tells you to proceed somehow 10. once rebooted, go back into router (using IE), login to your NEW firmware which is now address 192.168.1.1! 11. I did another "Restore to Factory Default" at this point (refer back to step 7 for "fact reset"). 12. Refresh internet page, login again to that permanent address of 192.168.1.1 (default username/password will exist). Change your router settings as you wish. YOU ARE DONE. 13. Disconnect LAN-ethernet cable and check if the wireless is working now. I really think there is no way to screw up the above instructions. Just chill out and things should work great. Good luck, Patrick. NOTE: KingJL and myself report the 5GHz LED indicator light does NOT function on router, but the radios are working perfectly fine (max 19dB output for me). Dave |
: silverhand May 11, 2011, 11:19:48 AM
OpenWRT isn't the same as DD-WRT.
As far as I know, the only firmware available is the Buffalo firmware that comes with the unit and the Community editions published by DD-WRT. The latest version by DD-WRT was published on May 8, IIRC. I've not tried it yet, as I like people to try it before I do. :robotvery-happy:
: KingJL May 12, 2011, 01:57:35 PM
Brainslayer has repeatedly said that dd-wrt does not limit the transmit power, but that it is limited by the chipset/hardware. Further he has indicated that anyone in tech support who disagrees is wrong. See ticket 2047 at the following link (read all comments)
http://svn.dd-wrt.com:8000/ticket/2047
I have located the FCC report filed by Buffalo, Inc. for the WZR-HP-AG300H. Page 7, Section 3.1 describe the unit under test as having a TX power of 935.7 mW (29.7 dBm) for 2.4 GHz and 915.1 mW (29.6 dBm) for 5.0 GHz.. The full report can be obtaines at:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=1436494
NOTE: It appears that you cannot go directly to the above link without going through the FCC system. Instead follow these instructions:
go to https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Generi?cSearch.cfm
Grantee Code = FDI
Product Code = -09101889-0
go to bottom of page and click on "Start Search"
there will be three entries displayed, click on "Detail" of the second entry (2.4 GHz)
there will be a list of attachments displayed, click on "Test Report - 5C"
the Test Report PDF will be displayed
If this issue is ever to be resolved, Buffalo Inc needs to get involved. Regardless of the previous statements that Buffalo Inc. and DD-WRT are working on the issue, if the owner/developer of DD-WRT (brainslayer) belives that it is the hardware and not DD-WRT that is the issue, IT WILL NEVER BE FIXED!
Tech support, will you please get involved in this. It is obvious that this unit (as well as other Buffalo HP units) are being limeted by DD-WRT. I would think that from a marketing veiw alone, it would be worthwhile to address and correct this problem! Since embracing DD-WRT on it's products, Buffalo Inc. products are now being judged by the performance of dd-wrt!
: John_M May 12, 2011, 03:00:31 PM
This note from Ubiquiti makes me think it is an inherent madwifi driver problem and Ubiquiti gets around it by building in a hardware power offset into their Atheros based cards...
: KingJL May 13, 2011, 07:53:01 AM
What is it going to take to get a response from Buffalo Inc. about this issue? Maybe a class action lawsuit for false advertising will help... a HP router that was reported to the FCC as having >29 dBm TX Power, but shipped to the customer running Buffalo branded DD-WRT that will not provide greater than 20 dBm TX Power!
: twvacek May 20, 2011, 08:01:24 PM
I had to figure out how to make a tftp-upgradable firmware out of the dd-wrt web-upgrade firmware, and I wanted to share what works in case someone else finds himself in my predicament. Basically, I took the first 32 bytes from the openwrt WZR-HP-G301NH tftp firmware and appended all but the first 28 bytes of wzr-hp-ag300h-dd-wrt-webupgrade-MULTI.bin from dd-wrt. Here is a hex dump of the result:
0000000: 2320 4169 7273 7461 7469 6f6e 2050 7562 # Airstation Pub
0000010: 6c69 6320 466d 7431 0000 0000 0000 0000 lic Fmt1........
0000020: 2705 1956 c4f2 c250 4dc5 f8bc 000e f3f8 '..V...PM.......
0000030: 8000 2000 8000 6150 1aa7 5e5d 0505 0203 .. ...aP..^]....
0000040: 4d49 5053 204c 696e 7578 204b 6572 6e65 MIPS Linux Kerne
0000050: 6c20 496d 6167 6500 0000 0000 0000 0000 l Image.........
0000060: 6d00 0080 0004 c72a 0000 0000 0000 03ff m......*........
0000070: ff05 4007 f186 7f28 2c6d 6c36 cadc ea46 ..@....(,ml6...F
This flashes successfully via tftp. On all devices, the bootloader listens for HW address 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:20 with IP 192.168.11.1, so set that with "arp -s 192.168.11.1 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:20". Also, the bootloader does not respond to pings.
Maybe this will goad Buffalo into releasing tftp-able images.
: squirrelly May 22, 2011, 10:54:18 PM
Vote with your wallet. I sent mine back to Amazon for a refund. I will continue to watch this forum to see if they update the hardware with version 1.1.
: phred_t May 23, 2011, 05:16:28 PM
I just bought one from newegg.com and I am returning mine because of this power issue. Thankfully I didnt open first.
: derf May 23, 2011, 06:03:30 PM
Wish I had returned mine.....Although I haven't I have discouraged 3 others from making the mistake.
I've switched back to the User Friendly firmware....and will wait till the new DDWRT is released before i try to flog this unit on Kijiji....might as well spread the poor performance issues far and wide (because for sure the unit doesn;t provide wifi coverage far and wide)
: mookie May 23, 2011, 08:50:58 PM
I prefer the Buffalo firmware over dd-wrt (as it is seems to be inferior to stock firmware in terms of performance, as evidenced by the transmit problem people are complaining about). In fact, I find that the Buffalo firmware works very well on this router - not a single problem so far - and has a lot of great features like media server, which dd-wrt does not have.
: KingJL May 24, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
I prefer the Buffalo firmware over dd-wrt (as it is seems to be inferior to stock firmware in terms of performance, as evidenced by the transmit problem people are complaining about). In fact, I find that the Buffalo firmware works very well on this router - not a single problem so far - and has a lot of great features like media server, which dd-wrt does not have.
I totally agree. If you use the dd-wrt firmware you will lose all HP capability. And I do not forsee this being rectified ant time soon. The management of dd-wrt is in denial. They claim that the hardware has a limit of 18 dBm, even when presented with the FCC test submission by Buffalo, Inc. which clearly shows 29dBm at 2.4 MHz channel 6. Brainslayer has dismissed this claim and says that none of the units that he received showed that kind of power. So the message is if "user freindly" firmware cannot satisfy your needs, DO NOT BUY THIS ROUTER. In my case, the 'user friendly' firmware satisfies my needs. Now. if you need client mode to a non Buffalo router and non WPS, that is another story!
: phred_t May 24, 2011, 11:36:16 AM
To KingJL or others that have tried DD-WRT and the "user friendly" firmware on the AG300H...
Can you confirm that the user friendly firmware most certainly DOES increase range? If so do you have any details or approximation on the degree of difference between the two in regards to range? Thanks.
: KingJL May 24, 2011, 01:10:53 PM
The user friendly firmware does not increase range. It works as designed and tested. The dd-wrt firmware will decrease it by up to 9 dBm or more (100 mW vs. 800 mW). That can translate into ~1/3 the range (0.35 to be more exact). This decrease can be seen in a relative signal strength difference by scanning software such as Insider. Most notable though, is the thruput at any given distance (i.e. the thruput will be equal or greater with the user friendly version than dd-wrt at any distance; the closer, the less the difference). The 'user friendly' software will consistently result in higher connection speeds. The downside of the 'user friendly' firmware is the versatility.
: phred_t May 24, 2011, 04:51:20 PM
Well I meant "increase" vs. the DD-WRT firmware. This is just very interesting now we have confirmation that indeed the user friendly firmware provides a much more powerful signal vs. DD-WRT.
KingJL,
your signal level and thruput results at distance for the user friendly firmware vs. DD-WRT would be a great way to further prove you point to DD-WRT developers, namely BrainSlayer. If you could prove to them that on the same channel that the 2 firmwares are much different in output power that would be hard to deny that DD-WRT (or related underlying drivers) is the issue. I vote you post these findings on your #2081 ticket and see what DD-WRT has to say.
Keep fighting the good fight!
: derf May 25, 2011, 11:37:54 AM
What I'm wondering is;
Is the lack of power a result of FCC Regulations. I thought I saw somewhere that 'they' have imposed a 20dBi limit on 802.11 based radios. Now I have yet to look around too much yet (when I do I'll follow this up with a post) on this issue. But I did see in the FCC Filings for this product that the Output Power is 935mW on the 2.4 and 915mW on the 5Ghz channel. Maybe someone 'in the know' can clarify is that per antenna or total.Because if my thinking is correct by channel divided by the 2 antenna means indeed a shorter distance with a greater possibility for throughput.
I can see that a 900mW output paired with a 3 dBi antenna provides 30dB
In no way am I or anyone using this 'High Power' device getting that range
: soyabeanmilk May 25, 2011, 07:14:04 PM
i am running the Community build and am trying to revert to the Buffalo user friendly firmware due to the power issues (I'm only getting between 10-14 dBm!)
I am not able to do this from Administration>Firmware Upgrade. I get an "Upgrade Fail" messageusing the buffalo firmware.
Can someone please guide me on how I might be able to do that?
Thanks in advance!
p.s. Thanks to KingJL and others who have done a lot of research on this topic. I do hope that DD-WRT fixes the problem as this is a very nice router.
: KingJL May 25, 2011, 08:36:25 PM
soyabeanmilk wrote:i am running the Community build and am trying to revert to the Buffalo user friendly firmware due to the power issues (I'm only getting between 10-14 dBm!)
I am not able to do this from Administration>Firmware Upgrade. I get an "Upgrade Fail" messageusing the buffalo firmware.
Can someone please guide me on how I might be able to do that?
Thanks in advance!
p.s. Thanks to KingJL and others who have done a lot of research on this topic. I do hope that DD-WRT fixes the problem as this is a very nice router.
Read this thread thoroughly!
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=78566&highlight=
You can download the Factory firmware from the Buffalo site or get it off your CD that came with your router. Be sure that you are using the firmware for YOUR router. If you do not have a linux system available follow the directions using the "LiveCD". Personnaly, I have a dual boot system... XP and Fedora 14.
: KingJL May 25, 2011, 08:52:56 PM
KingJL wrote:
soyabeanmilk wrote:i am running the Community build and am trying to revert to the Buffalo user friendly firmware due to the power issues (I'm only getting between 10-14 dBm!)
I am not able to do this from Administration>Firmware Upgrade. I get an "Upgrade Fail" messageusing the buffalo firmware.
Can someone please guide me on how I might be able to do that?
Thanks in advance!
p.s. Thanks to KingJL and others who have done a lot of research on this topic. I do hope that DD-WRT fixes the problem as this is a very nice router.
Read this thread thoroughly!
http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=78566&highlight=
You can download the Factory firmware from the Buffalo site or get it off your CD that came with your router. Be sure that you are using the firmware for YOUR router. If you do not have a linux system available follow the directions using the "LiveCD". Personnaly, I have a dual boot system... XP and Fedora 14.
Oh I forgot to suggest... Log on to your router via ssh (or telnet) and run the command 'ubootenv.. Copy and paste the info into notepad. Look thru the info for the correct MAC address for the router to use in the referenced procedure. Mine was 02:AA:BB:CC:DD:20. It is labled uboot_ethaddr. Then use this address in leu of the one specified in the procedure.
: dmcintosh256 June 06, 2011, 10:33:27 PM
Hi,
I am torn between purchasing a Linksys E4200, a Netgear WNDR3700v2 (unfortunately), and the WZR-HP-AG300H, and I have a couple of questions. Bear with me; I well understand computers and networking, but have zero experience with dd-wrt:
1. I see that there is a very recent stock firmware build for the Buffalo unit. Has anyone here tried those? If so, does it make the transmit power better, worse, or the same as the previous rev. And the bonus question is, what is the max actual transmit power at 2.4 and 5 GHz with the new Buffalo FW?
2. Slightly off-topic for this thread, sorry!) Do either of the Buffalo stock Firmware builds (simple or prof.) have a reasonably simple way to configure a "true" Guest (multiple WLAN) setup, such that one can restrict access on one WLAN to disallow browsing of other LAN resources? I've seen the dd-wrt setup for multi-WLAN setup, and I wondered if that capability has been folded into the stock FW.
TIA - Doug
: derf June 07, 2011, 10:08:48 AM
There is no recent update to either the 'User Friendly' or 'Professional' firmware. The ones posted in the downloads section here simply show the date they have been posted online. They are the same builds that shipped with the unit and the ones included on the Installation CD. The problems that exist with the unit (ie Power issues), and others documented at DD-WRT have not been addressed and still EXIST. I haven't looked at the Netgear nor the Linksys unit so I have no opinion on them, but I do own a WZR-HP-AG300H and I would stay clear of it for now. It just doesn't live up to it's claims, and for a 'flagship' product the support is lacking.
Further on that, I'd suggest that you filter the advice you get for ACTUAL OWNERS of this product. Those in here (like some mods) that seem to discount the issues on this device YET DO NOT OWN ONE are suspect IMHO.
I'm currently running the 'User Friendly' FW. It does allow have an implementation of 'Guest'. I have not used it, but I understand that you can create multiple SSID's for each radio (2.4 & 5 Ghz) with it's individual security (WPA, WEP etc.) While setting that up you can 'Separate Feature'
"Separate feature
Connected wireless devices can communicate with WAN side devices if this setting is enabled"
I thought (i could be wrong) that if this is checked then devices connected via wireless can not see other devices either on the same SSID or others nor can they communicate with those devices connected via a LAN Drop.
One item that seems to be missing (and requested within DD-WRT Forums) is an ability to control 'Guest Access' bandwidth. Sharing my connection with my neighbor might be nice, but not once he decides to load up some torrents ;)
: blackomegax June 08, 2011, 10:58:26 PM
As an actual owner of this product, and after doing some quasi-scientific testing (more tests similar to the ones i posted in the ddwrt atheros forum), I can attest that neither buffalo branded firmwares, nor dd-wrt community build, support anything close to "high power" output.
Testing the AG300H vs a broadcom netgear 3500L at 50 feet, with the same settings reported (20mw, 13dbm(the max it will go without hacking it to falsely report txpwr)) (and alternating which has a/c, to avoid direct interference)
Both achieve similar N link-rates and dbi in INSSIDer, across all 3 firmwares.
I have no way to do a similar test on 5ghz, but it too does not report any higher than 13dBm, and will not even connect at 50 feet with the user-friendly firmware. (but will with dd-wrt, at 9 mbit A)
: derf June 09, 2011, 08:00:24 AM
OK so this is getting very frustrating.
This is what we get form the Marketing Guys at Buffalo;
"Buffalo’s AirStation Wireless-N networking solutions provide powerful 802.11n wireless connectivity, offering outstanding performance and range. Designed to IEEE802.11n standard specifications, AirStation Wireless-N solutions offer single band transfer rates from 150 to 300 Mbps and concurrent 300 Mbps on dual band solutions for a combined total of up to 600 Mbps. Great for Web surfing, HD multimedia streaming, gaming and more, Buffalo AirStation Wireless-N is the perfect boost for your wireless network."
and this;
"Buffalo’s AirStation Wireless-N networking solutions provide powerful 802.11n wireless connectivity, offering outstanding performance and range. Designed to IEEE802.11n standard specifications, AirStation Wireless-N solutions offer single band transfer rates from 150 to 300 Mbps and concurrent 300 Mbps on dual band solutions for a combined total of up to 600 Mbps. Great for Web surfing, HD multimedia streaming, gaming and more, Buffalo AirStation Wireless-N is the perfect boost for your wireless network.
add in a graphic 
and another
and VOILA you have SCHMUCKS (like me) shelling out $100+ because they believed the advertising.
But it goes beyond this. Indeed if anyone (I did) looks at the FCC report on the device indeed it shows (at least in that report) that indeed it does provide almost the maximum allowable power (900mW if I recall).
So the question for me is. Was that test performed and submitted to the FCC for approval valid, accurate and indicative of what the end-user will experience with the product and if not, should the FCC be pulling it's approval? Wouldn't be the first time that Buffalo was denied sales in the US.
: derf June 09, 2011, 08:30:17 AM
From FCC;
And;
Rule interpretations
Questions regarding interpretations of the Part 2 and Part 15 rules as they apply to low-power transmitters and measurement procedures used to test these transmitters for compliance with the Part 15 technical standards, should be addressed to:
Federal Communications Commission
Equipment Authorization Division
Customer Service Branch, MS 1300F2
7435 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD 21046
Tel: (301) 725-1585 / Fax: (301) 344-2050
E-Mail: labinfo@fcc.gov
So does the software change the design and require an amended FCC Filing?
: rapsure June 12, 2011, 02:48:29 PM
I've been doing a bunch of testing myself. There are reports that running 80211n_wlanconfig athX set_txpowercap mac_addr Y{dBm} will make it output more power. From my own testing the command does not increase power especially in the United States. The power appears to be capped at 20dBm and can not be overridden by any command. The same output power is always read by my wireless devices. Also there are claims that the device does not meet expected results and for me after running several tests the WZR-HP-AG300H does outperform other 802.11g access points. The coverage area hasn't necessarily increased because the output power can not exceed 1W peak output power of EIRP (equivelant isotropic radiated power). The keyword is peak and so not at any point in time should the wireless router exceed that power output. I've tried several different wireless channels and each wireless channel has its own peak output power that the router appears to be calibrated to. The calibration values are most likely values that Buffalo have arrived at after extensive testing so that the router does not exceed the EIRP. Antenna gain is included in the EIRP values and hence which is most likely to cause the lower output power values.
So with my testing of the different channels and the corresponding maximum output power I have consistently achieved the same maximum range. In developing a HP access point there are two issues to consider namely: antenna gain, output power. There needs to be high gain antennas because if the antennas are not high gain then the 802.11 devices will be able to receive the data from the AP but the AP will not receive packets from the 802.11 device such as a laptop. However with higher gain antennas there will be a corresponding lower output power because the antennas themselves are more efficiently radiating the available power.
From a testing perspective the device needs to be setup in an EM anachoic chamber and measured. I do have access to such equipment but is it really worth my time? For me the access point is already giving higher speed connection rates on both the Tx and Rx than another Linksys 802.11g device. So from the current testing that I've performed Buffalo achieved better coverage by attacking the problem in two directions.
It is not okay in my opinion to be transmitting above the 1W EIRP due to interference with the neighbors. I have someone who is doing such a thing with dd-wrt loaded Linksys WRT-54GL routers. When such a situation occurs it can cause lots of difficult to diagnose problems with connecting to the wireless AP.
: axiomatic June 15, 2011, 11:41:22 AM
Is there anything new on this issue Buffalo?
I own 2x WZR-HP-AG300H? as well as 1x WZR-HP-G300NH? and I see this low power TX issue on both models. I have had to "bench' my Buffalo solution and I am unfortunately back to using 2x DIR-855's from D-Link to service my location again as the Buffalo routers will not push more than 13 to 15 dbm? where my D-Link DIR-855's is at least pushing 23+ dbm?.
Whats worse is I'm beyond my time that I can return these Buffalo routers. I'm stuck with you Buffalo. Please fix this situation or at least state in detail when you plan to address this and the dates we can expect these fixes to arrive as a downloadable DD-WRT FW off of Buffalotech.com.
I really want to support you guys. Help me keep these routers and continue to speak highly of your company by getting these routers to perform at the published specs your marketing materials claim they run at. I want to be an advocate of your technology.
: derf June 15, 2011, 03:15:58 PM
What Buffalo seems to be forgetting is that Early Adopters affect the overall success of a product. As an example take the new ASUS Transformer. I picked one up as soon as I could get my hands on it. I also tried and tested the Acer Iconia. What's abundantly clear is that the hands on reviews all over the Net on the ASUS only furthers the status of the product. Compare that to the WZR-HP-AG300H. Sure many stellar reviews popped up as the unit was released, but as time passed and ACTUAL USERS started to respond, you can see that in fact the hardware/software as it currently stands DOES NOT live up to the HYPE.
Does Buffalo think for one second that a User that is considering the WZR-HP-AG300H and it's DD-WRT Firmware isn't looking into this forum?
A quick look at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk provides all the info one needs if indeed Range is what you're looking for??
: derf June 15, 2011, 03:17:47 PM
PS Just switched to OpenWrt on this unit. TIme will tell if it's any better
: drmemory June 15, 2011, 03:48:10 PM
The BT Pro (DDWRT) FW does not accurately report the output power. The power matches what you see in the FCC report. The power output is actually very close to the FCC limit as shown in the FCC report, it just isn't being shown correctly in the DDWRT GUI. We've discussed this with DDWRT in Germany and they agree. We are working with them to resolve the reporting of the output power.
: buddee June 15, 2011, 06:44:37 PM
Erm no, that is incorrect, they don't agree that it measures the power incorrectly, maybe to buffalo they state that but to the community its quite a different reply. Actually the dd-wrt devs state that 20dBm is the max this unit can do, whereas the FCC and other sources (not using dd-wrt on it) say otherwise. So which is it? Power measured incorrectly or 20dBm limitations? We'll never know...
: KingJL June 15, 2011, 08:39:25 PM
Are both radios working on OpenWrt? I want to move to OpenWrt on this router when I see some success out there. Plz, keep us informed on your progress with OpenWrt on the wzr-hp-ag300h.
I moved to OpenWrt on my wzr-hp-g300nh and never going back. When setting the power to Max (27dBm), I saw a 7db increase in the signal level being received by attached clients. So much for "erroneous power reporting" by dd-wrt. The fact is dd-wrt's mad-wifi cannot currently correctly set up the ateros 71xx chipsets. Ubiquiti realized this a long time ago.
: drmemory June 16, 2011, 08:38:58 AM
We're getting our information directly from DDWRT personnel, as of a few days ago.
: blackomegax June 16, 2011, 06:34:45 PM
My own real-world testing confirms buffalo's official statement a few posts up.
The router does vastly outperform other routers at the same reported output power, range, and obstacles, indicating the true output power is indeed much higher than DD-wrt is reporting.
: rapsure June 16, 2011, 08:36:33 PM
I have tested the output power as well. Even though the reported values don't change above 13dBm a setting of 16dBm output more power than a setting of 13 dBm and a setting of 20dBm output more power than the setting of 16dBm. The test was run by setting a laptop ~30 feet from the access point with both the access point and the USB wireless adapter using Atheros chipsets. The maximum output power that can be set for the device is 20dBm and is correct as the output power can vary by 8dBm. A setting of 27dBm in openwrt is not compliant with FCC regulations.
: buddee June 17, 2011, 05:31:58 AM
Thats funny, you know in the dd-wrt forum you claimed the opposite, and now claim it works, your "real-world" tests are done with inSSIDer? That is not "real" test equipment.
: axiomatic June 17, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
I wish I could agree with you but my real world testing is not as successful as yours was. I'm seeing about 1/3 the coverage distance with my two WZR-HP-AG300H?'s than I get with my considerably older two D-Link DIR-855's. I feel duped. I really needed the additional range and I thought the WZR-HP-AG300H? was the ticket.
Well I think I've learned a hard lesson here as an early adopter. I wont make this mistake again. I'll hang on for the new FW as I have no chance of returning these to Amazon, but I'm not holding my breath.
My apologies for so much cynicisim but I'm not made of money guys. I cant afford to make $300 mistakes. :smileysad:
?
: rapsure June 17, 2011, 08:03:59 PM
I've walked the distance of coverage. At ~150 feet through an apartment building with eight units the signal begins to drop and measures at -88dBm. I would have obtained a better connection with a better wireless card though. On the other side where there aren't as many obstructions to pass through I get ~200 feet. Still a better wireless card would have given me more distance. There was more than enough coverage to get the entire apartment building.
: blackomegax June 18, 2011, 06:15:23 AM
I did run those tests. I also made assumtions and felt angry at the product for not seeming to perform as advertised.
Those tests do not include further "tests" againsts OTHER ROUTERS.
Nor real bandwidth tests beyond reported linkrates of a GN and A client.
In Real-World(tm) testing, an AGN client will get about 100 mbit of real bandwidth at 50 feet, as opposed to a broadcom router at 20mw getting 1-2. and 11 at 40mw, and about 40-54 at 100.
: suteny0r June 19, 2011, 02:54:47 AM
I just bought an AG300H, it hasn't even arrived yet.
I chose it because I was looking for great hardware on which to run dd-wrt
wish i'd seen this first.
I can still return it upon arrival....
What is the best highpower ABGN router to use with dd-wrt? what chipsets do they work well with? obviously not the atheros using madwifi...
: buddee June 19, 2011, 03:15:43 AM
Not sure why you'd want to return it, its a great unit, i would go so far as to say the only issue i have with it is the fact that alot of users in general (including myself) don't match up to 28~29dBm that the FCC fillings find. Even still, all my buffalo units outperform any of my broadcom units with not much effort. So i still stick with their products, but i'd like to see the transmit power that OpenWRT can do (with openwrt transmit power is at 26dBm) featured on dd-wrt, there is no reason it shouldn't work on dd-wrt. I praise the work of dd-wrt and have made many donations to the dd-wrt project, but this little milestone issue would be nice to have it resolved.
: suteny0r June 19, 2011, 03:43:21 AM
I understand your point of view.
here is mine
I've many years of pleasant dd-wrt experience, on several differnt harware platforms.
I bought the AG300H on the reccommendation of a friend, for it's high power radio and high performance, AND dd-wrt compatibility - even coming that way.
It is abundantly clear, from these 5 pages of discussion that it is NOT an optimal platform for dd-wrt at this time.
What I'm asking is, what other routers offer similar performance (huge amount of ram, fast cpu, high power radios), and use chipsets that dd-wrt works well with?
: slybunda June 19, 2011, 11:57:39 AM
broadcom units only.
: Sarang June 19, 2011, 03:13:32 PM
I have to agree with buddee, I purchased my ag300n to replace my linksys wrt600n and I am very pleased with the performance. It can cover my house and lot with no problems.
: polinho June 22, 2011, 12:24:47 PM
hi
a bougth this router to get HD streaming rigth over my house
but a thougth that the transmit power was 29dBm so... is almost the same specs than my older router (tplink http://www.tplink.com/en/products/prodetail.aspx?mid=010303010101&id=112? TL-WR941ND 
?)
but better coverage and better performance... ovbiusly i will love an extra 9dBm power output!
at the moment... i think it is ok
: BuffaloBrian June 27, 2011, 06:38:25 PM
Please note that there are many variables here. The legal limit set by the FCC is to never transmit OVER 30 dbm. To accomplish that, the average power setting will be lower since the peaks must remain under 30 dbm. The dbm being reported in DD-WRT firmware is NOT the peak power, but the average power setting. It also doesn't include gain from antennae, etc. So 20 dbm power setting gets close to peak power of 30 dbm. It is similar to comparing audio amplifiers and comparing peak power to RMS/average power.
The FCC report logs the peak power measured out of the antennae, not the internal chipset setting. As some have found, the performance is superior to competitors in real-world testing. Of course, everyones' mileage may vary, but please also know that since Buffalo HP routers are flirting with the limits of FCC, certain channels have to be detuned additionally to keep peaks down.
Also, spurious emissions outside the band of 2400-2483 have different limits, so lower and higher channels (e.g. CH 1 and 11) have additional requirements for lower power to keep their spurious emissions below the cap.
Center channels will give optimized performance. Additionally, the nature of Wi-Fi is that 20 MHz will transmit at higher power as well, so to accomplish max power, 20 MHz channels and center channels should be selected.
-Brian
: axiomatic June 28, 2011, 02:02:16 PM
So I take it Buffalo is not going to defend this issue in any capacity then other than a short paragraph of text? No empirical analysis? No testing reports of any kind for your paying customers? No report of what is/is not going on here with the disparity of your marketing materials and the real world observance of poor TX power? No screenshot examples to verify what you say is a problem displaying averages of dBm? No code excerpts that back up your words?
Look I am a network engineer by trade. I work L3 product engineering for the largest PC manufacturer on the planet. Were I to respond to my customers with supposition and zero facts like is being purported here I would be in a lot of trouble quickly.
Please help me to continue to be a Buffalo Technology advocate. I want to work with you to prove this issue wrong and feel good about the $450 I sepnt on 2x WZR-HP-AG300H? and 1x WZR-HP-G300NH? to replace two older DLink DIR-855's which by reading your marketing material should not even be able to hold a candle to one of the WZR-HP-AG300H?.
Come on guys... rise to the occasion... defend the honor of your product.
: slybunda June 29, 2011, 08:36:31 PM
the hardware cannot do 29dbm, what the fcc detected was transient peaks, mostly noise. this router has no more than 19-20dbm of tx power.
only hardware that can go higher than this is professional stuff such as ubiquiti hardware.
there is no advertisment of buffalo website to state the actual tx power output of the device. they hope people will be confused by what the fcc reports show and buy the products on that basis.
: axiomatic June 30, 2011, 10:33:17 AM
I dont think I asked for 29 dBm? I'm just looking for it to outperform a much older competing product. Currently, it doesn't and marketing misdirection aside, it should. I've spent $450 on a WAP solution that can't outperform a 3 year old product from a competitor.
: Gingernut July 01, 2011, 04:48:50 PM
If anybodys interested Tim at Smallnetbuilder has just published a review for this unit, it was beat in 2.4/5GHz band wireless range/throughput by nearly all the other tested wireless routers which aren't 'High Power' and also had quite a few problems using DD-Wrt so had to revert to Buffalo's friendly firmware for the tests.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31521-buffalo-wzr-hp-ag300h-reviewed
: 1oldguy July 02, 2011, 10:06:36 AM
I have been monitoring the signal strength of the Buffalo and my existing D-Link that are sitting inches away from each other --- using KisMAC 0.2.99 on a PPC Apple laptop. (Note, the laptop is only capable of the lower frequency--- so I am unable to report the second frequency comparison)
The Buffalo is showing 10 points higher on instantaneous, average, and max power after a 24 hour monitoring session. In the graph mode, the Buffalo strength is double the D-Link.
: KingJL July 02, 2011, 05:45:29 PM
Gingernut wrote:If anybodys interested Tim at Smallnetbuilder has just published a review for this unit, it was beat in 2.4/5GHz band wireless range/throughput by nearly all the other tested wireless routers which aren't 'High Power' and also had quite a few problems using DD-Wrt so had to revert to Buffalo's friendly firmware for the tests.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31521-buffalo-wzr-hp-ag300h-reviewed
Finally the word is getting out into the public domain. Our complaints to Buffalo tech and to dd-wrt have been in-effective in achieving a positive response. Now the outside world will resonate with the dd-wrt failures resulting in an impact of market share. This is not an individual user that can be dissmissed as someone who does not know how to properly set up the router. That may get some action!!! What a shame... the Buffalo hardware is well engineered and works well with OpenWrt. The dd-wrt issue is not just with Buffalo units; It applies to all of the current generation of atheros (ar7100/7200-ar92xx) based routers. DD-WRT's developer, chris, is trying to address the issue, but appears to not yet have the full support/backing of dd-wrt management.
: rapsure July 03, 2011, 01:40:02 PM
Gingernut wrote:If anybodys interested Tim at Smallnetbuilder has just published a review for this unit, it was beat in 2.4/5GHz band wireless range/throughput by nearly all the other tested wireless routers which aren't 'High Power' and also had quite a few problems using DD-Wrt so had to revert to Buffalo's friendly firmware for the tests.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/31521-buffalo-wzr-hp-ag300h-reviewed
I read through the review and some of the tests I found to be what I got too. However the alpha firmware 17135? gives me 20Mbps higher than the factory firmware. The AP gives better performance for Wi-Fi G devices too with firmware DD-WRT 17135.
: buddee July 03, 2011, 09:18:59 PM
I wouldn't go by that review exclusively, they recently put out an article about how high power routers don't give the greatest range.
In the review, the editor didn't know that there is high power dual band adapters out either, i had to send him a link to one such model that has been out for some many months now. That alone tells me that they aren't on the up and up. And thats not the first instance of it where i have had to correct them...
And this isn't giving dd-wrt a pass either, because the issues do exsist, but them not knowing what hardware is out, and many months of it being out doesn't give smallnetbuilder high credibility ratings on the scale either. So smallnetbuilder reviews, i would advise, be taken with a grain of salt.
: slybunda July 05, 2011, 03:29:20 PM
i agree with buddee on the above post. review sites should be the ones who always know whats going on with the latest tech.
: msteele July 06, 2011, 03:40:31 PM
What's up with the new more expensive WZR-HP-AG300H on Amazon? They are advertising "Ism Unii Band 37.50 Mbps Speed?". I don't know much about ISM/U-NII other than what's available on WikiPedia. It looks like certain U-NII bands now allow 1W of transmit power. I'm assuming this new Amazon post is just marketing since I can't find anything about it on Buffalo's site.
This seems to follow this thread of the AG300H being limited (and perhaps not even achieving) the 250mw max output currently mandated by the FCC. If in fact this is a new version of the AG-300H that transmits at 1W, then everyone on this forum thread should be happy.
Do any Buffalo people want to comment? ?
: jtwags July 09, 2011, 05:24:06 PM
I thought I would add my experience with the AG300H. I have been using the G300N for sometime and it has been a rock solid router. I decided to upgrade and went with the WNDR 4000 to start for a dual band router. Speed was great until it kept loosing conenction with my wifes computer using intel 5300 and our droid X's. Signal was fluctuating constantly and we are in a condo with 7 other wireless routers in range. Used inssider to find best channel and no luck. Returned the WNDR 4000 and went with the WNDR3700 thinking it had been updated and may be more stable. Worked great for a week, then same thing kept dropping signal and loosing bandwidth in the condo. Even worse it would randomly reboot while streaming netflix through bluray player. Played with the settings even thought about flashing dd-wrt as some people have found success. Decided not to take a chance with warranty and returned the unit. Purchased the AG300H knowing is was 2x2. I had a hell of a time setting it up. When i changed the SSID the 5ghz would disappear and not power up (no signal) couldn't connect. I played with it until I finally changed the names of the bands completely. For some reason having disimilar names worked (ie: buffalo5g for 5ghz and wonka24 for the 2.4ghz). I have been able to connect all my devices, wireless desktop, two laptops, two cell phones, 2 wireless printers, wired bluray player and wired readynas duo. This router has worked flawlessly. I am looking at my up time and it shows 37 days, 20:53. I have not touched the build yet, 15940. I am tempted to try 17135 but at this moment in time it has worked great to the point I haven't needed to tinker with it at all. I will say the 5ghz range is weak, but that is something we should realize with that band; It will not cover a house well unless in the same room. I only use the 5 ghz band when streaming in the same room and it has worked perfectly on my intel 5300 and intel 5100 cards. For me the g300n has been solid and now, after initial setup doubts and worries, the ag300h has been solid to date. I really wanted the wndr4000 to work so i could take advantage of 3x3, but the fact is it fell short in the reliability area. I think the longest stretch i had with the 3700 and 4000 was 15 hours up time. I am watching prices on the ag300h as they may drop because of the smallnetbuilder review and I plan to pick another up to creat a bridge in my new house for upstairs office. I will let you know how it works.
: FireMan July 19, 2011, 06:21:51 PM
Hi All,
How can I revert from DD-WRT (not Buffalo) to Buffalo's friendly firmware???
If i try to upload the "UserFriendly_1.72_1.15.enc?", or even the "wzrhpag300nh-pro-v24sp2-alpha-17135_us_eu_ap.enc?" one, I get the FAIL message.
I'm stuck with buggy DD-WRT build 17201? :(
Many thanks in advance!
: buddee July 20, 2011, 04:59:23 PM
You would have to use the TFTP method to revert back, works pretty much the same on the WZR-HP-G300NH as well.
: FireMan July 20, 2011, 05:27:02 PM
Thanks.
I've found the problem: bind @ arp a mac different from my router (a mac generic to all routers): arp -s 192.168.11.1 02:aa:bb:cc:dd:20
I've switch back to factory default firmware, but I will miss some interesting features from DD-WRT :(
But DD-WRT is too slooooow in WiFi. Also, the 40mhz channel is a "must have" (and DD-WRT doesn't have it!).
Cheers.
: na21 September 22, 2011, 07:19:17 AM
I just bought one off Amazon without properly reading reviews.
Has this issue been fixed or will the dd-wrt firmware always have decreased power output?
: KingJL September 22, 2011, 07:44:07 AM
na21 wrote:I just bought one off Amazon without properly reading reviews.
Has this issue been fixed or will the dd-wrt firmware always have decreased power output?
No, the issue has not been fixed. The issue may not ever get resolved for the Buffalo routers (possibly all atheros based routers). The technology will probably move forward without ever solving the problem with the current atheros generation.
There are hints that dd-wrt might have problems in properly controlling tx power with multi-stream (2x2, 3x3) mimo based routers. They are currently addressing a "problem with TX power that was not present in the original software" for the new (not released to date) rt-n66u from Asus (which is a broadcom based router). What I do find interesting is the level of engagement of Asus corp. with insuring that 3rd party fw issues are addressed BEFORE the release of the product. I think that might influence my future product selection criteria.
: na21 September 22, 2011, 08:52:57 AM
That is unfortunate.
So the options for us are either:
- Use dd-wrt with reduced power
- Use the Buffalo firmware
Is that right?
My questions are:
- Is there much of a difference wireless coverage between dd-wrt and the Buffalo firmware?
- What features are in dd-wrt that is not in Buffalo firemware?
- Does open wrt work with full power?
: KingJL September 22, 2011, 09:31:10 AM
na21 wrote:That is unfortunate.
So the options for us are either:
- Use dd-wrt with reduced power
- Use the Buffalo firmware
Is that right?
My questions are:
- Is there much of a difference wireless coverage between dd-wrt and the Buffalo firmware?
- What features are in dd-wrt that is not in Buffalo firemware?
- Does open wrt work with full power?
1. Minimal. Stability is the main difference with the User Friendly being the most stable.
2. Many! The User Friendly software is very minimalistic with a basic limited set of features. The dd-wrt has much more flexibilty is controlling access, usb storage formats, Qos (still a little buggy), additional 'optware' packages.
3. Not really, though openwrt works slightly better. The reason for that is that the main 'developer' for the current ath9k drivers in both dd-wrt and openwrt is the same person. Changes are made first and sorted out in openwrt and then ported/inserted to dd-wrt. The ath9k driver support in both openwrt and dd-wrt is very much a work-in-progress at this point. Case in point: there have been about 9 significant ath9k changes in the openwrt development trunk in the last 2 weeks. I do not see this stabilizing in the near term.
: na21 September 22, 2011, 09:58:26 AM
Thanks King JL.
Hopefully I won't be disappointed?
: derf September 23, 2011, 01:15:36 PM
KingJL
Have a WZR-HP-AG300H here. Wish I had waited for all the reviews on the product prior to buying it back in late Apr 2011. Did manage to swap out the fixed antenna with some small increase for range of the device. Still it doesn't perform where I thought it should for all the hype on 'High Power'
SO my question is ....If I was going to buy a new Router...what would you suggest? Do you know of any that are truly TX'ing at the 27dBi or there about
: KingJL September 23, 2011, 01:59:41 PM
derf wrote:
... SO my question is ....If I was going to buy a new Router...what would you suggest? Do you know of any that are truly TX'ing at the 27dBi or there about
Like I have mentioned before on other forums... it depends on the purpose. For a long range client, my opinion is ubiquiti (I'm partial to the nanostation m2 or m5). With ubiquiti, stay with their fw (AirOS) as both dd-wrt and openwrt atheros issues still apply.. The ubiquiti routers are atheros based, but AirOS seems to work well.
For a multipurpose whole house AP, I've got my eye on the about to be released Asus RT-N53 dual band router (reportedly 28 dBm (2.4 GHZ mode g/ 26 dBm mode n). The RT-N53 is Broadcom based using proprietary drivers. Using the OEM fw should provide the 28 dBm in 2.4 GHZ. Whether the power will be maintained by 3rd party fw remains to be seen. The FCC report was completed Sep 20, 2011. Asus seems to be fully committed to their router product line and and fully involved in insuring that they perform as spec'ed and designed. Their fw is adequate for most users. Broadcom based routers have a higher chance of success with 3rd party fw. I am also looking forward to seeing the FCC specs for the much hyped RT-N66U. They are not as yet published
: derf September 24, 2011, 01:11:57 PM
Thanks I looked at the ubnt site I wish they had (or i could find) a Dual Band unit :( As it stands I think i'll bite the bullet and spend the $88 on a NS-M2. Now just looking at it I'm starting to lean towards the NS2 simply because it does have External Antenna Support.....Thoughts?
: KingJL September 24, 2011, 01:32:26 PM
derf wrote:Thanks I looked at the ubnt site I wish they had (or i could find) a Dual Band unit :( As it stands I think i'll bite the bullet and spend the $88 on a NS-M2. Now just looking at it I'm starting to lean towards the NS2 simply because it does have External Antenna Support.....Thoughts?
I have found that usually with external antennas with the m2, you gain nothing unless you are using a parabolic high gain. The reason is that the cable loss and connector loss usually amount to about 4 db. And the cheaper antennas that claim 6 - 10 db gain usually end up with less than the original antenna. The only exception to that is the ubnt bullet m2 when attached directly (no cable) to a good quality stick antenna. The internal antennas on the ns m2 have about 12 db gain (not insignificant). Also the ns 2 has a MUCH slower processor and uses atheros 5k series radios. The 9k series radios are much better when properly driven. The 9k series radios are much more sensitive/quiet in receive mode. Personally with the NS, i'd stay with the m series.
: dis October 02, 2011, 10:08:46 PM
I just bought: Buffalo WZR-HP-AG300H ?
I noticed that wireless level quality are so so
Signal Quality level i had before this firmware was at around 20-22%
Are they planing to fix this issue, or i should return the router and get something else?
Thanks
: KingJL October 10, 2011, 09:54:40 AM
KingJL wrote:
derf wrote:
... SO my question is ....If I was going to buy a new Router...what would you suggest? Do you know of any that are truly TX'ing at the 27dBi or there about
Like I have mentioned before on other forums... it depends on the purpose. For a long range client, my opinion is ubiquiti (I'm partial to the nanostation m2 or m5). With ubiquiti, stay with their fw (AirOS) as both dd-wrt and openwrt atheros issues still apply.. The ubiquiti routers are atheros based, but AirOS seems to work well.
For a multipurpose whole house AP, I've got my eye on the about to be released Asus RT-N53 dual band router (reportedly 28 dBm (2.4 GHZ mode g/ 26 dBm mode n). The RT-N53 is Broadcom based using proprietary drivers. Using the OEM fw should provide the 28 dBm in 2.4 GHZ. Whether the power will be maintained by 3rd party fw remains to be seen. The FCC report was completed Sep 20, 2011. Asus seems to be fully committed to their router product line and and fully involved in insuring that they perform as spec'ed and designed. Their fw is adequate for most users. Broadcom based routers have a higher chance of success with 3rd party fw. I am also looking forward to seeing the FCC specs for the much hyped RT-N66U. They are not as yet published
The RT-N53 is still not yet available in the US market... but, the WNDR4500 is! The specs look good especially in the 5 GHz band (better than the RT-N53, the 2,4 GHz band specs are only slightly lower than the RT-N53)... and it is broadcom based.
: hotfortech October 18, 2011, 04:11:35 AM
Hi guys,
Just filed a ticket about the Wi-Fi performance problem with support.
Tried KingJL suggestion of using the "Friendly" version of the firmware and it indeed does improve the situation.
when using the pro version (17135) or the community version (17201) the transfer rate over wifi was 1.5~2 MB/s. when switching over to the Friendly FW they were when up to 8MB/s and above...
Lets hope this +1 counts for anything.
: asur October 20, 2011, 07:02:20 PM
KingJL, have you tried putting some higher gain antennas on your AG300H?
: na21 October 20, 2011, 07:27:24 PM
hotfortech wrote:Hi guys,
Just filed a ticket about the Wi-Fi performance problem with support.
Tried KingJL suggestion of using the "Friendly" version of the firmware and it indeed does improve the situation.
when using the pro version (17135) or the community version (17201) the transfer rate over wifi was 1.5~2 MB/s. when switching over to the Friendly FW they were when up to 8MB/s and above...
Lets hope this +1 counts for anything.
That is a huge difference. They really should? try to commit a change into dd-wrt by either contributing a fix or their driver.
Not properly supporting their flagship product is just really poor form. The first and last time i get Buffalo product.
: KingJL October 20, 2011, 07:36:50 PM
No. The internal antenna is ~3dBi (2.4G) and ~4dBi (5G). A cable and connector would introduce a 4 dBm cable/connector loss. That is assuming that you could get some dual band high gain antennae. If I wanted replaceable high gain antenna, I would get a unit that already had external antenna connections or built in directional antennae and had fw that would let you use the power of the hardware (which you do not have with Buffalo or dd-wrt fw). Most of the high gain omni antenna that are available have as much loss in their connections as the antenna has gain. I tested some 9 dbi omni antennae connected to a WHR-HP-G300N and had no increase in performance. There was so much loss in the connector and flexible joint that any improvement was lost. There are other (and probably cheaper) options out there if external antennae are your goal. With the Buffal HP units, getting the firmware to support the 27 dBm power output would give you abuot as much improved performance as a 11 dBi antenna (8 dBm power increase + 3 dBi internal antenna). Now with a ubiquiti NS m2, I can get 27-28 dBm power (AirOS fw) and 11.5 dBi internal antennae. It all depends on deciding what you are want to do and get the right equipment to support the application. Trying to make a square peg fit a round hole is not the answer.
: KingJL October 20, 2011, 08:13:06 PM
Not properly supporting their flagship product is just really poor form...
You don't understand... there is no router that is their flagship product. Their flagship product(s) and commitment are network storage devices... not routers!
: na21 October 20, 2011, 08:46:53 PM
KingJL wrote:
Not properly supporting their flagship product is just really poor form...
You don't understand... there is no router that is their flagship product. Their flagship product(s) and commitment are network storage devices... not routers!
Highest end router then. Lousy support with routers mean I will look elsewhere for NAS products.
: derf October 23, 2011, 10:46:04 AM
Well i picked up a PicostationM2-HP. The device pushes a sweet 28dBm with the RP-SMA connector I added a 14dBi panel to focus where I wanted coverage. WORKS GREAT and as expected.
I will say that when I decide to upgrade from my WZR-HP-AG300H I'm going to stay clear of Buffalo.
I can't help but wonder if these Buffalo "High Power" *cough BS cough* units are hobbled due to the regulatory restrictions outside of NA.....Where we (USA nd CAN) are allowed to push higher signals for coverage most places around the globe are far more conservative. If it wasn't for teh gigabit ports I'd be flogging it on Kijiji. And like I sated eslewhere Buffalo should undrestand that people that frequent these forums indeed influence the purchasing choices of others
: bknonix July 08, 2012, 04:50:15 PM
All:
I know this is a bit later in the cycle, but just reviewed this thread as I was looking at the settings on my AG300H.
I just updated the firmware to DD-WRT - 17798, which was recommended to fix the DDYN issue and everything seems to be working better now.
Further, I was able to set the TX Power level from the default of 20 to 25 and saw my Signal Levels improve by about 10% throughout my house. Should also note that I have both 2.4 and 5.0 networks running and I increased both of them.
So, maybe this was resolved a bit?