High Powered Wireless Network for Audio



I have frustratingly low signal strength and erratic performance with the wireless network in my house.

The culprit may be a combination of 1) ordinary Verizon DSL service and 2)a wireless G router? and/or 3) brick chimneys and concrete block within the walls of the house?

To hopefully improve, I am switching to a faster cablem modem service from Cablevision which I will install by my desk for at least a robust connection there.

Could anyone please recommend a wireless router for maximum range and signal strength? Has anyone used any wireless boosting devices? In Stereophile, I have just noticed Gigabit Powerline HD - could this be a better solution?

What is the best way to ensure a robust connection and trouble free streaming on multiple devices?
cwlondon

Showing 7 responses by almarg

CW,

In addition to the excellent suggestions offered above, you may want to consider the idea of having a wired router, and a separate wireless access point, which in turn would be wired to the router. Depending on the physical locations of your networked devices, it may be very helpful to have the greater flexibility that would provide in terms of wireless access point positioning, and perhaps antenna orientation as well.

I too use Cablevision's Optonline service, btw, and it is fabulous. I pay a bit extra for their Optimum Boost option, which advertises 30 mbps downstream/4 mbps upstream. At my location in Connecticut it handily betters those speeds, usually giving me about 32 and 5, as measured via the Speakeasy.net speed test. As you may be aware, Cablevision also offers 100 mbps downstream speeds (!), although at much greater cost.

Keep in mind also that with an always-on high speed cable connection, firewall protection (via either hardware or software) assumes added significance. I prefer a hardware firewall, in part because it eases the burdens on the computers, and in part because the models from SonicWall are extremely good, although relatively expensive.

My home network pre-dates -N, and is all 54G. I use a SonicWall TZ170 hardware firewall/wired router, which cost about $450 a few years ago. Comparable current models, at similar or lower prices, are considerably more powerful than the TZ170, which has served me beautifully. See the listings and prices at NewEgg.com.

I use a 54G wireless access point and signal amplifier from Hawking Technology, which I have also been very pleased with, in terms of range, speed, and the ability to handle multiple wireless devices simultaneously. I have no knowledge of their -N products, but I would expect them to be well worth looking into.

Best regards,
-- Al
Hi Kij,

The 45 and 11 mbps numbers you mentioned for 802.11G and B are highly theoretical, and useful for advertising purposes only. In practice getting 1/3 of those numbers is doing well.

That is a common point of confusion, in part because many (or all?) computers, depending on the operating system, will misleadingly indicate G connections as being connected at 54 mbps (the theoretical maximum), and B connections as being connected at 11 mbps (also the theoretical maximum).

To get an idea of the real speed, either measure the time required to transfer a large file over the wireless link, or if you have a high speed cable connection to the internet compare internet speed test results (such as those provided at Speakeasy.net) from a wired computer with those you get from a computer that is wirelessly connected to the same router and cable modem.

Best regards,
-- Al
Boss302 makes a good point. I'll add that incoming signal strength can be monitored at any time, by interrogating the cable modem. You may wish to do that in the future if performance problems arise.

That can be done from any computer in the house that is networked to the modem, by entering a certain 192.xxx.xxx.x (local) address into a web browser program.

The address to enter depends on the particular modem model, and can usually be readily determined by Googling the make and model number. A password may have to be entered as well, which will also be indicated in some of those search results if it is needed.

Regards,
-- Al
Thanks, Boss302. But, yes, I was referring to the strength of the signal that is received by the cable modem from the outside cable. I have had several cable modem models, of at least two different makes, and in each case I was easily able to determine how to interrogate the modem via a web browser, and obtain an indication of the incoming signal strength on the WAN side of the modem. And also an indication of the signal strength being transmitted to the outside by the modem.

DSL may very well be different in those respects, as you indicate.

Best regards,
-- Al
Here are links to info about acceptable/desirable signal strengths for cable signals:

http://www.speedguide.net/faq_in_q.php?qid=78

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/3412

And this page provides links to info about many cable modem models, including their default ip address (at which, in many or most cases, status information including signal strengths can be viewed), and user name + password if required:

http://www.speedguide.net/broadband-list.php?cat=70

Best regards,
-- Al
CW -- I would guess that Kaspersky is not responsible, as my (somewhat vague) impression is that it is not as resource hogging as some of the more popular anti-virus programs. In any event, you should be able to tell for sure by entering its settings panel and temporarily turning off its real-time (background) protection.

What operating system does the netbook run? XP? Windows 7? Other?

Have you defragmented the hard drive on a regular basis (say
once every month or two)? If not, that would be one of the first things I would do. Also, how much used and unused space is there on the hard drive?

Also, with no programs open, open up Task Manager, go to the Processes tab, and let us know how many processes are running (the total number is indicated at the bottom of the Task Manager window). And if it is not too inconvenient, list the names of any processes that are listed as consuming large amounts of memory (say 50K or more).

Also, indicate the total cpu utilization %, as indicated at the bottom of the Task Manager window, and the names of any processes that are listed as consuming more than a few percent cpu utilization (while all programs are closed).

In Windows XP, Task Manager can be called up by pressing the Cntrl, Alt, and Delete keys simultaneously. I'm not sure how to do it in Windows 7.

Finally, check the color quality setting of the display on the netbook. If you are running XP, right click on any part of the desktop screen that does not have an icon on it, select "properties," and then the "settings" tab. If "color quality" is listed as "32 bit," change it to "16 bit," or even less if a lower setting is available.

Best regards,
-- Al
CW -- That's interesting about Kaspersky. Perhaps the reason my suspicions were otherwise is that pretty much all of the anecdotal indications I've seen were based on experience with laptops and desktops, not netbooks.

If you end up deciding to go to a different av program, I would suggest obtaining a free 30-day trial of ESET's NOD32. JUST the anti-virus program, not the complete "Suite." I don't recommend any complete protection "Suites" by any manufacturer -- they are in most cases replete with resource hogging bloatware.

I use NOD32 on all of my laptops and (homebuilt) desktops, and as far as I am aware it provides the best overall combination of effectiveness and low resource utilization of any av program. The main reason for that is it is programmed in "assembly language," which is much more cumbersome to program in than the "high level languages" that are more commonly used, but has the advantage of running much faster. Despite that, it is no more expensive than most competitive programs, other than the free ones, especially with respect to renewal pricing.

Several years ago I set up an XP system on Optonline for a relative, using NOD32 and XP's built-in software firewall, without even a router, and there were never any infiltrations. Presumably your router provides NAT (network address translation), which provides an added layer of protection. As I indicated in my earlier post, my own preference is to have a business class SonicWall hardware firewall/router, for the added security and performance it provides, but that is probably overkill for most home users (unless they have kids who visit file-sharing and other unknown or questionable sites, in which case there is no limit to how much protection may be necessary!!!).

The 49 processes sounds within reason, if not ideal. And 1gB of RAM should be fine for XP, as long as you don't run several memory intensive applications at once.

If by any chance you are using the Firefox browser, make sure you are using the latest version (currently 3.6.10), or at least 3.6.something. Some early versions were known to have "memory leaks," which would gradually build up their memory usage as long as they were left open. If you are using 3.6.x, you are ok in that respect, but anything less than the latest 3.6.10 may have unpatched bugs or security flaws.

If you are using Internet Explorer in a version earlier than 8, I'd suggest updating. And perhaps trying Firefox as well.

Re being "the man" on this kind of stuff, thanks. It happens that I build my own high-powered desktop computers, and I serve as a moderator (under a different screen-name) at an internet forum for computer enthusiasts and builders, abxzone.com.

Good luck!

-- Al