Which is better? More APs with weak TX power or higher TX and less APs?

I’ve been testing out a Balance 20x with an AP mini and seems I need to set my TX power to low on the B20x with an AP mini on the 2nd floor set to medium.

If I crank my B20x to MAX I get ok coverage to second floor and great on main and basement.

I could gain at least 10-20 dbm on second floor with centrally located AP mini but having the B20x to low or turned off on main floor completely seems like a waste.

Would have to add another AP mini to basement to cover that area but the TX power would have to been turned down as it’s only 250 sq ft open area.


Make sure the APs running channel is not overlapped then it’s fine to have few APs running nearby each others.

Suppose you may need to check the idea signal for each application to run before you can decide to introduce a new AP in the network.

Reference link : Wi-Fi Signal Strength Basics | MetaGeek

1 Like

Thanks @sitloongs

I actually came across that article before. Good read.

I’m in a congested area. Lots of other networks, many using 80mghz wide channels.

I was using ch 165 on my main router and had AP set to auto.

If I leave all my APs set to auto, is there a chance at some point they end up on the same channel? Or would the AP controller in the B20x manage that?

I figure I would need to play with client threshold values in each AP to allow devices to connect to stronger signals, maybe setting it to -70 or -65.

I would discourage the use of ‘auto’ channel setting in a fixed deployment. Nothing will prevent them from auto setting the same channel.

You should use an android device or laptop with wi-fi analysis application for examining signals in your area and based on that determine what is best bands to use.

Yeah there’s the challenge… many competing networks in the area will have their channel selection set to AUTO… so I’ll randomly be getting “performance” problems possibly.

I’m using Netspot on Windows… and seeing about 15 networks all on ch 44 with 80MGHZ wide channel. And this is from basement. Its worse on main and 2nd floor. :frowning:

Sadly this is how manufacturers configure their hardware out of the box and most if not all end users either don’t care, or have no clue how best to tweak it.

This is why I liked using ch 165 with 20mghz wide channel… NOBODY else was using it, since it requires changing router wifi settings.

I guess what I could do is use ch 165 in the more congested area (upstairs AP) and use auto on the other with 40mhz wide channel (ch 165 only available on 20mghz wide ch)… If i add a 3rd AP I’ll have to manually set the channels at that point and will compete with neighbors unfortunately.

Heres what Im dealing with in the basement:

Not bad, but upstairs is another story (pun intended!)

2.4 is a zoo, which is i use only for guests and iot devices :slight_smile:

Your plan sounds good… Most of those 5ghz networks you are seeing would fall into “fair” or “weak” category. Below -70… I would not be too concerned about them.

I prefer setting channels manually to avoid clients getting dropped unexpectedly while channels change.

1 Like

Sadly, neighbors are using Eeros with dynamic channel selection. Today paints a different picture

Their network is showing 19 radios!! That shoud be illegal.

I recall @Michael234 posting on his site he wishes his neighbors never have Eeros. This is why. Sadly, a major ISP in our area has partnered with Eero and throwing them in everywhere for customers.