Hello everyone, I am a bit lost and totally new to all of this. I purchased this bundle https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/route ... -rm500qae/ and I thought it would work better than my Inseego M2000 but results are pretty much the same. I am about 9 miles from the nearest tower.
The Quectel RM500Q-AE modem has 4 antenna connections and the router case only has 2 antennas connected. I moved the antennas around on the modem between all 4 connections and tested speeds/connection many times with no improvement. In the process I damaged an antenna connection (Antenna 2) on the modem. My question is, with my primary bands being 2, 12, 66 and 71 how screwed am I by damaging the Antenna 2 connection? And finally, what can I do to improve signal and what would that connection configuration look like? Feeling pretty defeated so any help would be appreciated.
Quectel RM500Q-AE performance boost and damage
Forum rules
Use the SEARCH function for related topics PRIOR to posting a new topic on the same subject.
Use the SEARCH function for related topics PRIOR to posting a new topic on the same subject.
-
ProHomeOwner
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:39 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
-
Didneywhorl
- Posts: 3646
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 1370 times
- Been thanked: 764 times
- Contact:
Re: Quectel RM500Q-AE performance boost and damage
Solid setup for sure, but yeah, you have to drill 2 holes in the case for the other two antennas, or do like you did and pull 2 wifi antenna cables out of their homes.
Work better than the M2000 is only likely if you don't have good signal and/or really need the ethernet ports. If you don't need the ethernet and you have pretty good signal, it's likely the M2000 will generally perform a little better. This is because the M2000 is a purpose designed 5G modem device. The build kits are using powerful 5G modems but we are using them with open source firmware on a router meant to be able to support literally hundreds of different modems with one router firmware. There is going to be some performance loss with that much bloat in the software.
That said, the 5G openWRT router builds aren't typically slouches, and I think you're saying its running fairly well, just not as well as expectations.
Now, on to your modem damage. That happens A LOT. The Wireless Haven has you covered for $40: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/servi ... rt-repair/
Port 2 is a primary antenna port, it needs to get fixed. You may also find a local electronics shop that will do it.
The configuration. Drop over to the modem listing page here: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/modem ... lar-modem/
...and click on the little tab near the top of the description that is in blue text about antenna connections. That should get you a better idea of what your looking to do.
The antennas are setup in two pairs. A primary and secondary (mimo) pair. The Primary pair are your Main and Diversity antenna connections for the primary transmit and receive chains/paths. The Secondary pair are there for 4x4 MIMO capabilities and are generally reserved for receive, but I think they can also transit in special connection circumstances.
When connecting to outdoor MIMO antennas, or configuring four separate antennas, this layout is pretty important. When connecting to spike or paddle antennas on the back if the router case, it's not really as important. It IS ... but not really in the practical sense.
At 9 miles, you will likely do best with a high powered directional set of antennas.
If you want something simple and that has been out for a while with basically no complains that I've seen: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/anten ... z-antenna/
If you want a lower budget set that can still do well, especially if you dont have a lot of trees etc blocking your line of sight, four of these will rock it: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/anten ... l-antenna/
Work better than the M2000 is only likely if you don't have good signal and/or really need the ethernet ports. If you don't need the ethernet and you have pretty good signal, it's likely the M2000 will generally perform a little better. This is because the M2000 is a purpose designed 5G modem device. The build kits are using powerful 5G modems but we are using them with open source firmware on a router meant to be able to support literally hundreds of different modems with one router firmware. There is going to be some performance loss with that much bloat in the software.
That said, the 5G openWRT router builds aren't typically slouches, and I think you're saying its running fairly well, just not as well as expectations.
Now, on to your modem damage. That happens A LOT. The Wireless Haven has you covered for $40: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/servi ... rt-repair/
Port 2 is a primary antenna port, it needs to get fixed. You may also find a local electronics shop that will do it.
The configuration. Drop over to the modem listing page here: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/modem ... lar-modem/
...and click on the little tab near the top of the description that is in blue text about antenna connections. That should get you a better idea of what your looking to do.
The antennas are setup in two pairs. A primary and secondary (mimo) pair. The Primary pair are your Main and Diversity antenna connections for the primary transmit and receive chains/paths. The Secondary pair are there for 4x4 MIMO capabilities and are generally reserved for receive, but I think they can also transit in special connection circumstances.
When connecting to outdoor MIMO antennas, or configuring four separate antennas, this layout is pretty important. When connecting to spike or paddle antennas on the back if the router case, it's not really as important. It IS ... but not really in the practical sense.
At 9 miles, you will likely do best with a high powered directional set of antennas.
If you want something simple and that has been out for a while with basically no complains that I've seen: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/anten ... z-antenna/
If you want a lower budget set that can still do well, especially if you dont have a lot of trees etc blocking your line of sight, four of these will rock it: https://thewirelesshaven.com/shop/anten ... l-antenna/
-
ProHomeOwner
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:39 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Quectel RM500Q-AE performance boost and damage
Thank you very much! That cleared everything up. I am going to send it in for repair. What cables would you recommend for the panel antenna that was suggested? Also, do the cable runs experience any significant loss (shorter being better)?
-
Didneywhorl
- Posts: 3646
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 1370 times
- Been thanked: 764 times
- Contact:
Re: Quectel RM500Q-AE performance boost and damage
Shorter is much better. For most situations I recommend LMR400 or close equivalents like these: https://thewirelesshaven.com/product-ca ... -loss-400/
You'll want to make sure you match the connector ends to your needs. Most antennas need a cable with an N Male connector, and most routers need a cable end with an SMA Male on it.
If you are only needing about 10-20 feet max, then LMR200 cabling will suffice.
You are correct about the length. There is signal loss due to physics that pretty directly corresponds to the length of the cable. LMR400 cables will lose less than LMR200, as a direct result of a larger medium for the electrical signals to travel on (lower resistance/impedence -DC/AC). Longer lengths = more losses. More connectors will also mean more losses. IE chaining shorter cables together to make a longer run of cables. Not a total no-no, but not optimal.
You'll want to make sure you match the connector ends to your needs. Most antennas need a cable with an N Male connector, and most routers need a cable end with an SMA Male on it.
If you are only needing about 10-20 feet max, then LMR200 cabling will suffice.
You are correct about the length. There is signal loss due to physics that pretty directly corresponds to the length of the cable. LMR400 cables will lose less than LMR200, as a direct result of a larger medium for the electrical signals to travel on (lower resistance/impedence -DC/AC). Longer lengths = more losses. More connectors will also mean more losses. IE chaining shorter cables together to make a longer run of cables. Not a total no-no, but not optimal.
