View Full Version : BulletM2HP vs Bullet2MP interference rejection
jacobsuter
08-21-2009, 10:55 AM
I'd been testing/using Bullet2's and Bullet2HP's for sector and omni APs. I was wondering if the BulletM was any more/less immune to off-channel interference than the B2MP (appears to have better filters than the B2? I always seem to show about 3 db lower noise floor on the b2mp than b2).
Clients will be exclusively other Ubiquiti M gear.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
08-21-2009, 01:28 PM
Hello,
The RF/Atheros chips are much cleaner on the new M series when compared to the previous legacy devices.
Thanks,
Mike
drwho17
08-21-2009, 02:24 PM
Nice, I just got some BulletM's today, did some testing connected up fine to my existing AP's in G/10mhz. If they have a better noise floor, that and the ability to scale up, might make a tower climb worthwhile.
Note, I couldn't find in the interface a spot to turn airmax on or off.
UBNT-Mike.Ford
08-21-2009, 02:31 PM
Nice, I just got some BulletM's today, did some testing connected up fine to my existing AP's in G/10mhz. If they have a better noise floor, that and the ability to scale up, might make a tower climb worthwhile.
Note, I couldn't find in the interface a spot to turn airmax on or off.
Its only available when you are in AP mode. The clients will auto sense when an AP has airmax enabled or not.
Thanks,
Mike
masked
08-23-2009, 10:56 PM
If they have a better noise floor, that and the ability to scale up, might make a tower climb worthwhile.
I'm still waiting for my BulletM's to arrive. But, I have noticed with the MT r52n's in 5Ghz mode recognise the noise floor as -115dBm. Is this the same/similar with the M series also being Atheros based?
UBNT-Mike.Ford
08-24-2009, 10:00 AM
If they have a better noise floor, that and the ability to scale up, might make a tower climb worthwhile.
I'm still waiting for my BulletM's to arrive. But, I have noticed with the MT r52n's in 5Ghz mode recognise the noise floor as -115dBm. Is this the same/similar with the M series also being Atheros based?
Hey Masked,
That is a false noise floor reading from the driver. The hardware sensitivity is not that good. I think ~102 is max
Thanks,
Mike