|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > August 2006 > New LG VX5300 a bust
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New LG VX5300 a bust
|
|
| Mitchell Regenbogen 2006-08-10, 7:33 am |
| I'll have to give the 5300 a thumbs down. I'm returning it today. The
volume through the headset jack is so LOW, even on the highest setting,
that it's virtually unusable, especially in a car. The voice quality coming
through the regular earpiece is somewhat muffled, and I hear echos during
conversations that I never heard on my venerable Samsung A670. Whether it's
just my 5300 or a design problem I don't know, but I don't have the time to
go through mutliple copies to find out. So I guess I'll have to continue to
look for a good tri-mode phone with bluetooth. :-(
| |
| Ray Dios 2006-08-29, 12:33 pm |
| I keep going back to my tri mode Motorola V710, LG is not a good phone. I
just put a VX 9800 into hibernation (I don't like internal antenna phones),
It, like most LGs has problems with low ring volume, software bugs etc... LG
has been in the phone business a long time I cannot understand why they
haven't gotten it right by now! The V710 is the best Verizon phone I have
ever owned, and I have had quite a few, mostly LG's but no more.
| |
| Douglas C. Neidermeyer 2006-08-29, 3:33 pm |
| "Ray Dios" <radionet@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tc_Ig.22819$w7.4509@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>I keep going back to my tri mode Motorola V710, LG is not a good phone. I
>just put a VX 9800 into hibernation (I don't like internal antenna phones),
>It, like most LGs has problems with low ring volume, software bugs etc...
>LG has been in the phone business a long time I cannot understand why they
>haven't gotten it right by now! The V710 is the best Verizon phone I have
>ever owned, and I have had quite a few, mostly LG's but no more.
>
>
Your experience certainly is not typical. LG phones consistently are top
rated while Motos generally come out somewhat below average.
Doug
| |
| rocxspam 2006-08-29, 10:33 pm |
| Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote:
> "Ray Dios" <radionet@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:tc_Ig.22819$w7.4509@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> Your experience certainly is not typical. LG phones consistently are top
> rated while Motos generally come out somewhat below average.
>
> Doug
>
>
Maybe the reception aspect, at least, is dependent on the user's usual
location (like their home ;-). For instance, my house seems to be
"resistant" to receiving cell signals (Verizon to some degree, as used
by my household, and Alltel before that was even weaker). However, my
one son's Moto E815 has almost full strength most of the time while
here, but his LG before that, and my other son's other LG (dunno models,
but acquired 1-2 years ago) were consistently much worse here and most
places they went (that they noticed). 2nd son now has a Samsung that
does not do much better than his LG, but somewhat. My wife's Nokia
3589i, and my old 6015i, and new 6236i are somewhere in between,
although the Nokias are usually pretty receptive in most other places we
go.
Both my sons have sworn off LG as a result of their experiences (build
quality also a factor for them).
1st son did have his 1-month+ 1st E815 die all of a sudden, and is on
2nd month with free replacement, so holding judgement on quality...
Watcha gonna do?
FWIW/YMMV/etc
ROC
| |
| Mitchell Regenbogen 2006-08-29, 10:33 pm |
| "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <doug@faber.edu> wrote in
news:mdKdnSiSj5RoD2n
ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> "Ray Dios" <radionet@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:tc_Ig.22819$w7.4509@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Your experience certainly is not typical. LG phones consistently are
> top rated while Motos generally come out somewhat below average.
>
I've found Samsungs to be consistently good, especially at reception.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-08-30, 7:33 am |
| rocxspam <nospam@xspamx.no> wrote:
> Maybe the reception aspect, at least, is dependent on the user's usual
> location (like their home ;-). For instance, my house seems to be
> "resistant" to receiving cell signals (Verizon to some degree, as used
> by my household, and Alltel before that was even weaker). However, my
> one son's Moto E815 has almost full strength most of the time while
> here, but his LG before that, and my other son's other LG (dunno models,
> but acquired 1-2 years ago) were consistently much worse here and most
> places they went (that they noticed). 2nd son now has a Samsung that
> does not do much better than his LG, but somewhat. My wife's Nokia
> 3589i, and my old 6015i, and new 6236i are somewhere in between,
> although the Nokias are usually pretty receptive in most other places we
> go.
>
Comparing bars is meaningless. I had the Sanyo 7400 and my Wife had the Sanyo
8200 and my Daughter had the Sanyo 200. The 7400 showed the least bars in a
given area, the 8200 showed just a little more and the 200 showed nearly full
bars. They all lost reception at about the same time however, indicating the
difference is only with the display of the signal bars and not actual
reception. In short, if you sons are swearing off of LG because the signal
bar display is low, then they will be disappointed when they have a phone
displaying more bars but they can't complete a call.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-08-30, 10:33 am |
| Mitchell Regenbogen <mreg@panixxx.com> wrote:
> "Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <doug@faber.edu> wrote in
> news:mdKdnSiSj5RoD2n
ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> I've found Samsungs to be consistently good, especially at reception.
As have I. The 9200 had an issue that it wouldn't give up on a signal and
roam as my Sanyo would, so, in that respect, the Samsung was not as good in
marginal signal areas [where it would leave me unable to make or receive a
call rather than roam ... set to Automatic of course].
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| clifto 2006-08-30, 10:33 pm |
| Douglas C. Neidermeyer wrote:
> "Ray Dios" <radionet@bellsouth.net> wrote...
>
> Your experience certainly is not typical. LG phones consistently are top
> rated while Motos generally come out somewhat below average.
Quite the opposite. Motos are consistently top rated, while LGs are at the
bottom of the list.
--
More abuse of eminent domain!
http://www.villagelandgrab.com/
| |
| rocxspam 2006-08-30, 10:33 pm |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> rocxspam <nospam@xspamx.no> wrote:
>
>
>
> Comparing bars is meaningless. I had the Sanyo 7400 and my Wife had the Sanyo
> 8200 and my Daughter had the Sanyo 200. The 7400 showed the least bars in a
> given area, the 8200 showed just a little more and the 200 showed nearly full
> bars. They all lost reception at about the same time however, indicating the
> difference is only with the display of the signal bars and not actual
> reception. In short, if you sons are swearing off of LG because the signal
> bar display is low, then they will be disappointed when they have a phone
> displaying more bars but they can't complete a call.
>
I did not actually refer to bars. I suppose I should have mentioned
that this has been our experience with actual calls - generally (not
always of course) the bars were not far off in indicating that quality -
when the bars are down, AND the calls are breaking up it was time to
step outside to make a call.
Also, when the bars have gone to zero, the phones have usually gone to
extended network/roaming mode, even if only until we turned them to a
different position (I see that even with my 54g wifi network - just
moving the laptop an inch or 2 can be the difference between strong
signal/fast connection, and no network at all, and that can vary from
day to day, or hour to hour even - even the vicinity of my body or a
metal or ceramic coffee mug has affected the the wifi strength - how
about sunspots?) which makes me think we somehow get variable
interference with the towers we use - going a mile or 2 up the roads to
the vicinitiy of shopping centers and the Interstate nearby improves
bars and reception markedly.
Heck - maybe we are in that weird situation of being about equidistant
from several towers, which I understand can "confuse" the phones. We
are about 3 miles from Research Triangle Park, NC, which is pretty well
blanketed by all the major carriers (with all kinds of RF).
I have a Sprint EVDO Aircard (courtesy of employer - nice ball and
chain to keep me on-call more constantly), and its signal in the house
has gotten markedly stronger over the past year as Sprint has built out
that network in the area.
YMMV (without even moving ;-)
ROC
| |
|
| In article < Xns982EBA5F2FDFFmreg
panixcom@166.84.1.70>,
Mitchell Regenbogen <mreg@panixxx.com> wrote:
>
> I've found Samsungs to be consistently good, especially at reception.
Not in my experience. My Samsung SCH-A310 cannot receive or hold
calls in locations that either my Nokia 6256i or my LG VX-4400 can
and do. The rest of the phone? Fine. But reception? My money is on
another brand.
sd
| |
| Mitchell Regenbogen 2006-08-31, 7:33 am |
| sd <sd55117@yahoo.com> wrote in news:sd55117-1A6E3E.05342031082006
@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
> In article < Xns982EBA5F2FDFFmreg
panixcom@166.84.1.70>,
> Mitchell Regenbogen <mreg@panixxx.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not in my experience. My Samsung SCH-A310 cannot receive or hold
> calls in locations that either my Nokia 6256i or my LG VX-4400 can
> and do. The rest of the phone? Fine. But reception? My money is on
> another brand.
I guess not every model of every brand is the same. My Samsung A670 was
able to get and hold a signal inside buildings where my Audiovox 9900 and
Motorola 120e couldn't find a signal. And now my Samsung A870 seems to be
even better at it than the 670.
|
|
|
|
|