Review on 📡 2 x 8dBi Dual Band WiFi RP-SMA Male Antenna 2.4GHz 5.8GHz + 2 x 15CM U.FL/IPEX to RP-SMA Female Pigtail Cable - Ideal for Mini PCIe Wireless Routers, PC Desktops, Repeaters, FPV UAV Drones, and PS4 Builds by Johnny Chambers

I am interested in better antennas as my Wi-Fi extenders transmit a much better signal than my original base AP to the point that my phone is close to the original AP chooses next extender via hotspot (an expander needs to be covered as it requires tangle-free wired devices) so I thought I might improve its performance by attaching higher gain antennas to the base hotspot. Since this is for a one story house and one of the extenders is next to a wired access point, so I focus on getting a focused narrow beam so the extenders near the plane get a better signal and therefore higher throughput. I'm also focusing on the 5GHz band since that's where wireless AC comes into play. The 2.4 GHz band does not support newer standards and is slow even when close to a base station. So what's the point? I got around this using my phone and an app to find out the signal strength. Expect a focused beam that looks like a beacon. Instead, in the 2.4 GHz band, near the level, they found mostly bare bulbs like low-absorption omnidirectional ones. The 5GHz band is completely flat in all orientations, so it definitely has no advantage over the 5G band. I walked around the house looking for a noticeable improvement in signal quality. From the application it looked more or less the same in all places. The main reason I got them was to get the best signal to and from the wifi extenders. I verified this by plugging my laptop into a power strip and testing with iperf. For my final tests, I make sure everything stays in the same place and in sequence. So far, I've come to the case that interests me the most, where the extender is far from the base AP: 1. Reception – source antennas averaging 190Mbps. These antennas receive 170Mbps. Hence drop in performance2. Transmission - original antennas on average 190 Mbps. These antennas have an average of 150 Mbit/s. Another drop in performance. Read if only interested in 2.4Ghz get a signal some people have had success with some other antennas. This was hardly noticeable in the 2.4 GHz band, only a slight +2 dBi from 70 degrees down. For 5GHz it seems a bit more difficult to get something that focuses the signal in a way that makes sense for home use. If you need speed and extra reliable speed in the farthest corners of your home, especially if your walls are absorbing the signal, other solutions, while more expensive and likely more labor-intensive, will likely work better than a cheap trick like this. Some things to consider: 1. Wi-Fi extender. When repeating a signal, they often operate in the same range as the repeat, and not all are mesh-weighted, although this varies. Repeating on the same band slows things down and more than you think, and this seems to have more to do with collision avoidance techniques than just transmitting on the same channel you're receiving on. What you really want from a repeater is wired connections, as some of these have good antennas and are likely to be better than the end device you intend to use. On the other end of the house, a repeat might be better than a very weak connection, say on your mobile device, as you should at least be able to stream videos and surf the web reliably. 2. Transit over coaxial cable with MoCA. While large, branched, and legacy coax networks can and do fail, if your coax is decent enough in quality and size, coax can be a fairly reliable way to move lots of bits around quickly. Some extenders can be used as wired access points, using their own radio channels in this mode, and some support things like 802.11k, so you can quickly switch to an access point that you'll have a significantly better connection with if you move house. For most households, something like this is probably the least fuss you can achieve. Transit with Ethernet cable. This could be a good option if you have a way to route the cable. This can still go wrong if you or your employed hand are manipulating your cable and trying to fish it through tight spaces and the like, especially if you're not using cable conduit. If it lands anywhere outside the home, especially on the roof, electrical discharges can cause all connected devices to fail. Long distances should probably be done with at least Category 6 cable. Cat 5e has been found to tend to lose performance over long distances indoors. Transit with fiber - you need to monitor the bend with this material. Tends to have a really good signal as long as it's not kinked and placed where it would be stationary. It doesn't conduct electricity at all, so just what needs to be used for outdoor wiring. (I wonder why telcos are so obsessed with their old copper assets when they are probably losing equipment all the time and in fact on my last trip the 4G tower died in a thunderstorm and so I'm sticking with 3G for a few days in my hotel room, until they fix it.) 5. At this point I'm joking about other ways to get a fast network signal to the other ends of the house. I've tried various things like powerline ethernet and both are ridiculously slow and unreliable, especially when a blender or vacuum is on. It is assumed that the next wireless communication standard will work in the 5G and 2.4G bands. Maybe one of those cheap high gain antennas will still save someone's day if it fails, but I'm stuck with current AC for the foreseeable future as I've recently moved and bought a new phone and streaming gear. I was bound by the existing flawed AC standard.