In terms of difficult wireless mesh situations and indoor APs, I have found the MR52 is *far* and away able to maintain a better mesh link than a MR42 in the same location. Why is that exactly? The difference is ostensibly capacity for clients, but they seem so much more able. Thoughts?
But doesn’t it just use one for the mesh connection?? So I don’t know if it’s more per se
It uses one radio, but each radio has multiple streams/antennas. The 42 has 3 whereas the 52 has 4. I'd be willing to bet the mesh capabilities of the 55/56 are even better with them having 8.
At least that's how I think it works... 🤔
I’d love to hear a breakdown of how all those things relate.
4 spatial streams is a huge advantage for AP to AP communications. Clients with 3 spatial streams tend to concentrate all 3 antennas without much spatial diversity so you don't see a large benefit from the third stream. That might lead you to downplay the value of extra spatial streams.
4SS also gives you better reception thanks to maximal ratio combining. And 4ss also enables you to do 802.11ac standard beamforming for 2ss while 3ss can only do 1ss beamforming. That can help a ton especially when the two endpoints are stationary such as with two APs.
@JohnD That makes sense about the spatial streams beamforming. So with 3ss you don’t get any combined beamforming. That makes sense.