5 Ghz connection

according to UnitiQute 2 spec:

Antenna: Wi-Fi (802.11 g or n at 2.4GHz), F type (plus PAL adapter) 

Naim only use 2.4g. Its more suitable for in house use as it gets around/thru walls better than does 5g

I get a full 5 bars signal on my laptop all around my house with 2.4g,  except one room where its 4 bars. With 5g I only get 5 bars in the room & hallway closest to the hub,  other rooms are 4 or even 3 bars, showing 5g's limitations.  That said I have all my PC, printer & iPads on 5g 'cause it works OK & avoids the busy neighbours all on 2.4g.   No doubt 5g has its place, if nothing else because 2.4g is overpopulated.  

Doh!!  Why didn't I find that!  Thanks, Benny.  People here are so helpful

I had the same logic as Mike-B about going to 5Ghz, to get on the less busy highway and in this room it should have worked OK.  Bur we'll stay as we are

Moving what can go to 5G to 5G may still be worthwhile to reduce load on the 2.4G network.. If your tablets and phones are apple and of recent-ish vintage they should all be capable of working on 5G.

make sure you have different names for the 2.4 and 5g networks so you can more easily control what connects to what.

I initially thought that 5 Ghz must be better than 2.4 because it's newer.  Phil here and a bunch of other resources I've read say 2.4 typically gives better results.  If you're really leaning on wifi for streaming music, it sounds like a good idea to move the rest of the wifi stuff, if you can, to 5 and keep the music on 2.4.  Some trial and error needed I'm sure.

Thanks all.  I have the 2.4 and 5 on different names and I think I will move the other things to 5 to free up 2.4 as much as possible.  Not all can be moved of course such as my wife's rather old Dell which only sees 2.4

fyi

Thanks,  visually makes my point

This is the same but with numbers for the graphically challenged

Interesting.  This won't be an issue for me here as the walls in this house are all dry cavity walls.  My last house  was a very old stone barn conversion and wireless there was very difficult and I had to use an over mains system

However 5GHz will scatter more that 2.4GHz and since most of the signal is getting around the house by reflection and scattering through the doorways then it's not so clear cut.

Interesting the effect of K glass double glazing.... a 13dB drop is a serious signal drop.... and people wonder why they can't pick up their wifi in the garden! It's even worse when you think the weakest part of a wifi link isn't the access point (router) it's the rubbish mobile client trying to reply back made even worse when you consider the human body halves the signal!

My 2d worth.... WiFi is cr*p and to be avoided at all costs!!

+1 on the higher frequency scattering more... To be honest looking at those attenuation differences, in the world of radio, those differences are relatively modest.

The biggest benefits other than being able to use the relatively un congested 5GHz ISM band, is that the new standards such as 802.11ac are more efficient and are better able to cope with busy spectrum. These new standard is significantly more advanced than the aging 802.11g and still a big enhancement on 802.11n. Wifi (WLAN) really is a fast evolving technology..

The new wifi spectrum  in development is way higher than 5GHz, and gives great promise for huge bandwidths. It's all severeal  years away yet though..

But 802.11g is an aging protocol now that really has been hugely surpassed, and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that these days.

I'll call yer 2p & raise £2

I really don't get it! I have a Sky Router as it's almost impossible to replace it due to Sky's lock in policy. Nevertheless, I guess I have about a 40 MB Internet connection and have a switch to permanently connect a large number of devices, such as my AV amp, my Blu Ray player and my Samsung TV. On top of this I have a Belkin extender as my router is at one end of the house and not the middle, which would be optimal. I have 2 Sky boxes, one connected directly to the router and the other via WiFi. I have a Muso and a B&W A7, both connected via WiFi, a Printer, a Windows PC, and a MacBook Air all connected via WiFi. I stream films to the WiFi connected television, use the PCs and printer and play streamed music on the other various devices with nary a hiccough. Nope, i just don't get it!

In my case andarkian I have stuff on wireless & its pretty well OK,  but I would not allow my quality audio to go via it.  Too many variables.  

I took this advice, but I keep tripping over the long ethernet cable as I walk around my home with my iPhone in hand.  

You believe the bits and bytes transmitted via WiFi arrive in a different state from the bits and bytes routed through, say, Cat 5 cabling? If that were so not only would your music be unintelligible but streamed HD film would be rubbish and you certainly could not trust what your on line bank statement told you. You seem to  believe that you get enhanced rumble or jitter or corruption by transmitting data via WiFi? It either arrives or does not arrive, but if you feel that only Cat 5 cabling molifies your fears of digital corruption via the air waves then so be it. 

Mr. "Bits are Bits" returns.  /yawn

Yep! Hope you don't keep tripping over that Ethernet cable. ��

Your response is either not understanding my point or its deliberatly hostile. I fully understand how wireless works & how the bits should arrive as you put it. I also have both heard & measured the variables that are possible with wireless & that's my point in my post - too many variables.

I'm happy with printers & such like on wireless, but not my audio - end of.

I feel it's fallacious to compare wired ethernet to wifi in terms of the order or sequence of 'bits'. In using TCP the order transmitted data does not need to be sequential or even evenly timed. The 'audio data' is abstracted away by  several protocol layers including TCP (transport control protocol) from the actual transmitted digital data.

However in terms of traffic flow one comparison that could be reasonably made is comparing the performance and 'audio quality' of a switched full duplex wired Ethernet LAN  with a hubbed half duplex wired Ethernet LAN. Now the data flow and performance of the half duplex wired hubbed Ethernet is rather similar to that of most wifi protocols. The busier the hub, the more collisions and therefore retransmits exist, this is essentially the same as for most wifi. 

Equally I see no issue with preferring switched wired connections over wifi connections, as one has a higher confidence of success under differing loads or envionmental conditions... And I think this is Mike's point.

Simon

I think I know what you are trying to say Simon. Both WiFi and Ethernet use exactly the same TCP protocol and you are right in that data (not allowed to say bits and bytes any more ) is sent in packets which can and is sent and received in not necessarily the same order, a la sketch of Eric Morecambe and Andre Previn, except on receipt the packages are reassembled in the correct order.

The argument is whether there is enough bandwidth to send the data wirelessly fast enough without interruption to recreate the musical experience and whether there might be signal attenuation over a certain distance. In either circumstance the failure would be instant and audible. As the data is sent in linked packages any other 'corrupting' airwaves would also be eliminated by the receiver. That only leaves us with one unknown and that is the 'radiophonic' impact of the receiver on the analogue conversion of digital data, for which I have no answer. However, I will append this question and answer session from 2010 which appeared, at least to me, to ask the right questions and jump to sensible conclusions quite quickly. 

http://forums.slimdevices.com/...dex.php/t-82026.html

As soon as data is received the magic of conversion to acceptable HiFi output is as it ever was. 

Indeed, the RF electrical noise caused by a wifi radio transceiver or RJ45 transceiver port and associated protocol stacks is another matter entirely...

Simon

I'm not going into the issue of how using wifi might alter audio qualities... I just mean I can't even browse the internet on the kitchen table when the kitchen is one door from the living room (where the router is)! It'll work, just, in the bedroom above the router but that's about it. Tried three different sources of wifi. Also as someone that sits on the end of problem phone calls from people ranting on about wifi, believe me when I say for a LOT of people it really IS cr*p! ;-)

Just my 2d worth (that's old money) :-)

Strange, very strange Steve. No problem at all if you think I am ranting about this subject. However, to keep on topic, my Mother lives in the upper wing of a 15th century Scottish mansion with very thick stone walls. At 87 she has no need or knowledge of WiFi. However, her downstairs neighbour does have it and it is easily accessible from my Mum's premises, although they will not unfortunately share the password. Another of her neighbours doesn't bother to secure their network and when I visit I stand outside their foot thick walls and use my iPad or iPhone, with their permission by the way, on their network. Of course I am not trying to get streamed music up there, just my bank account, email or stocks and shares.

Now am not sure about the service you are receiving Steve, eg what alleged speed, or whether you have tested it yourself (plenty of tools available on the Internet), but assuming you are getting a service into your house are your walls like my Mother's house and what kind of door connects the kitchen to the living room?

Believe me... we speak to up to a dozen customers a day who report similar findings so it's not strange at all ;-)

In my case the router's throwing out 300n 2.4GHz. Walls are breeze block. Door's open. If I stand with the notebook in such a way that I can see the router through the open door then the wifi is good. If I shuffle a yard either way so I can sit at the table then it's rubbish. This is looking at the signal strength meter on a windows PC and testing using the internet. For example I can't do my online tax return at the kitchen table; I have to do it sit on the settee in the living room!