MechZone Dual-Band WiFi Repeater

Like many people, I have a WiFi router at home for tablets, laptops, and lately various IoT (Internet of Things) devices. But because of the apartment's layout and the less-than-ideal placement of the router, the connection is poor in some areas, so I decided to improve things a little by installing a WiFi repeater.


Let me start by saying that WiFi repeaters are evil, and you should do everything you can to avoid using them, especially in densely populated urban areas where WiFi is already congested. But sometimes there isn't a good alternative, and they're also used in private homes, where distances can be quite large.

When I renovated the apartment back in 2009, I also ran network cables throughout it, but I didn't pay much attention to WiFi's growing popularity. When choosing where to put the equipment, I picked a spot on the balcony (point 1).
That would have been fine, except that my workspace, among other areas, is positioned so the WiFi signal has to travel across the entire apartment (point 3), passing through at least one load-bearing reinforced-concrete wall and two reinforced-concrete partition walls.
Ideally, it would be great to put the router at point 2, right in the middle of the apartment, but all the cables come out on the balcony, even though I did run one cable there as well.


When I needed WiFi 10 years ago, I connected a USB WiFi adapter to my mini server. Surprisingly, it worked pretty well; at least, it was convenient to set up laptops without plugging them into a cable.
Some time later, a no-name Chinese router replaced the USB WiFi adapter. It worked about as well, maybe a little faster, but I was able to get rid of the old Dlink, which didn't have WiFi.
Later still, the no-name router was replaced with an ASUS RT-AC1200GU, which supports not only the 2.4/5 GHz bands, but also gigabit ports and password-free guest networks, which was handy too. The only downside to all these options was the small number of ports: for some reason, the vast majority of router models have only 4 Ethernet ports, so I also have to use a switch.


Overall, this setup worked for me, but after a while the connection in the living room got really slow. My wife started complaining that her Samsung didn't always work properly, and mine was struggling too. It was especially noticeable when she came over to show me something on her tablet and the connection dropped.
I had to put a TP-Link TL-WR740N in repeater mode in the storage room (point 2). It improved things a little, but not much, and it only supported the 2.4 GHz band.


Eventually, I reached the point where the 2.4 GHz band was so congested that using it was ineffective, while the reinforced-concrete walls caused major problems on 5 GHz.
That was why, when I was offered the chance to choose a product to review, I picked a WiFi repeater.

I placed the order, and about a month later a courier delivered a small box in a bag.
Judging by the writing on the box, there are two versions:
300 Mbps, 2.4 GHz, 2 antennas
1200 Mbps, 2.4/5 GHz, 4 antennas.

This review is about the second version. I wouldn't choose the first, if only because it's slower and doesn't support the 5 GHz band.


The product page lists a few basic specs, though the box has quite a bit more information. What especially amused me was the claim that it can "penetrate walls" :)
Also, the product page says it has gigabit Ethernet, while the box says 100 Mbps. I trust the latter more.


Besides the repeater, the package included a manual and a "paperclip" for resetting it to its factory settings.


The manual is double-sided: one side explains how to configure it from a PC, the other from a phone. Formally, they’re no different from each other.


There are also two colors to choose from, black and white. I prefer black, although it doesn’t really matter, especially since nobody will see it.


There are four indicators on top (operating mode, active bands, power) and a button for easy pairing.
On the side are the reset button hole and an Ethernet port.
It has a European plug built into the housing, so the power supply is integrated. There are ventilation holes at the corners.
There are also ventilation holes on the sides


There are four antennas. They rotate through a wide range of angles relative to the housing, though it’s probably easiest to position them like the letter H.


Before testing, I decided to take it apart. It’s very easy: first remove the screw hidden under the sticker, then separate the two halves of the housing. There are clips, but they’re pretty flimsy.


The two halves are connected by a cable with a connector, which is actually convenient. Judging by the spot where the wires are soldered to the repeater board, there’s also a model with an external power supply.


The power supply takes up most of the rear section of the housing. Build quality is average, although judging by the required specs (5 V, 1 A), it’s actually overbuilt. The input capacitance is 2 × 6.8 µF, and the output capacitance is 1000 + 47 µF. There’s an inductor between the input capacitors, but none on the output. There’s a Y capacitor, but the resistor serves as the fuse—and I’d even guess it’s a fusible resistor.


Inside the repeater is an aluminum plate that acts as a heatsink. Judging by the board, there’s probably also a version with two Ethernet ports.
Overall, the inspection shows that this is a sort of "kit" that allows the manufacturer to make many configurations based on this board, with different features, numbers of ports, and power options.


I remove a couple of screws, take off the heatsink, and that’s basically the end of the teardown. I could have removed the board completely, of course, but I didn’t see much point.


And here the Chinese have outdone themselves. The photo above shows two thermal pads on the heatsink. One is fine—it sits properly against the chip—but I couldn’t figure out what the second one was for. The chip is visible on the right, with two antenna cables attached. There’s fabric tape on top, and the heatsink is placed over the whole assembly with a thermal pad in between.
No, that particular chip probably doesn’t get very hot, but this kind of "sandwich" is a first for me.


The board has two chips, both made by Realtek.
The RTL8812BRH handles the 5 GHz band
The RTL8197FN handles 2.4 GHz

The chips are relatively new. From what I’ve found, they’re made using a 28 nm process and offer low power consumption and support for 802.11ac Wave 2.


Everything inside looks so simple that there’s not much else to describe, so I tidied up the wires and reinstalled the heatsink.
Yes, it would have been more correct to run the tests with everything installed as the manufacturer intended, but my inner perfectionist couldn’t stand it.


Before the tests, a couple of words about choosing the right place to install it.
The repeater shouldn’t be installed too close to the router, or you won’t notice any difference at a greater distance.
You also shouldn’t put it too far away: it will receive a weak signal, and you’ll end up with a strong signal but low speed.

I placed the repeater roughly halfway between, and in my case the location is close to ideal: the signal from the router is still strong enough, and the repeater isn’t too far from my mobile devices.


As it turned out, the repeater’s power consumption isn’t all that low. After about a day of operation in a not particularly cool room (near the ceiling in a storage closet during a hot summer), it was noticeably warm, though not overheating.
Measuring its power consumption showed that it draws 2.5–3 W in normal operation, and 3–3.2 W with a cable connected.

By the way, I’ll say right away that on this repeater model, the cable is effectively an "output," not an "input." That is, When the repeater is connected to your router over WiFi, this port bridges the connection to the router, effectively acting as an Ethernet extension.
However, the store page calls this port WAN for some reason, which is incorrect; you can't use the repeater as an access point.


Setup is extremely simple: plug the repeater into a wall outlet, wait a little, then open the WiFi settings on your phone or computer. Since the settings are pretty much the same either way, I'll show the process on a phone.

In the list of available networks, you'll see access points named wifi-2.4g-xxxx or wifi-5g-xxxx. The last four characters match those in the MAC address printed on the repeater's case.
The networks are open, so just tap either one.
I also checked the connection speed shown for each access point: 65 Mbps for 2.4 GHz and 135 Mbps for 5 GHz. Of course, this only indicates the connection speed, not the data transfer rate.


There's one catch: our connection doesn't have internet access yet, so if you're connected through mobile data, setup won't work. You'll need to turn it off.

Then open any browser, enter 192.168.188.1 in the address bar, and go to that address.
You'll be prompted for a password, which is also printed on the case: admin. Tap Login, and the repeater will start searching for access points, then display a list of them.
In my case, it found both, named according to their bands: kirich_2G and kirich_5G.


From the repeater's perspective, it doesn't matter which one you connect it to. But for the best data transfer speed, it's worth trying both options (if you have them) and seeing which works better. You can only do that after completing setup, though.
If you want to change the settings, you'll have to perform a full reset using the included "paper clip".

In the example below, I chose to connect to my router on the 5 GHz band. Enter your network password below and tap Next.
You'll then see the names of the new access points created by the repeater. By default, these are "your network name-pro-2.4G" and "your network name-pro-5G".

It's interesting that the password is masked on this screen, but on the next screen, where it shows the access point the repeater is connecting to and the ones it has created, the password is visible. Why? A mystery...


And here's the end result.

Let me explain how the connection works.
The repeater can be configured for only one incoming connection. So, if my router supports both 2.4 and 5 GHz, for example, I can choose only one of them during setup. That's why both options for the first half of the SSID are shown on the right: the repeater can't connect to your router on both bands at once.
But as the "output", meaning the network you'll connect to, both bands are available. You can use either one or both at the same time—for example, when one device uses 2.4 GHz and another uses 5 GHz. The second half of the name determines which band you'll connect to on the repeater.


The manual also describes additional authentication and encryption settings, but I only stumbled across them by accident when the browser on my phone somehow switched to the desktop version of the page instead of the mobile version. You can even tell from the page formatting, which is all messed up.


First, a speed test over Ethernet under ideal conditions: the repeater is 1.5 meters from the router.
Blue and green: 5 GHz; red and white: 2.4 GHz

From the repeater to the router.


From the router to the repeater.
In any case, the speed here is limited at least by the 100 Mbps Ethernet interface.


The repeater is still next to the router. This time I tested it with a phone that was also right nearby, so conditions were again close to ideal.
The repeater is connected to the router over 2.4 GHz. Phone-to-repeater connection: blue/green, 5 GHz; red/white, 2.4 GHz.


Same test, but with the repeater connected to the router over 5 GHz. Phone-to-repeater connection: blue/green, 5 GHz; red/white, 2.4 GHz.
I was also curious what speed the phone would get without the repeater, next to the router, so I ran one more test: yellow/gray.


But ideal conditions aren't all that interesting to me, so I moved the repeater to the place where it will actually be used: the storage room in the center of the apartment. The repeater is connected to the test computer via Ethernet.
Speed from the repeater to the router: 5 GHz at the top, 2.4 GHz at the bottom.


Speed from the router to the repeater. Here, at 5 GHz (top), I didn't notice any difference compared with placing the repeater next to the router, but at 2.4 GHz (bottom), the speed dropped noticeably.


Now I can test it in the scenarios I originally had in mind. For that, I'll go back to the apartment floor plan.
The router is at point 1, and the repeater is at point 2. The two spots where I most often need WiFi are marked with green circles, next to the labels X2 and X1. I'll refer to them by those names from now on.


First, I'll check how congested the bands are, starting at point X2.
On the 2.4 GHz band, I can see the repeater clearly, but my router (channel 8) only very faintly.


The 5 GHz band looks much better. I actually started thinking about turning off the 2.4 GHz band on the router to reduce congestion on an already overloaded band, especially since the tests show higher speeds at 5 GHz.


At point X1, things look really bad at 2.4 GHz. I can just about see the repeater, but the router's signal has completely disappeared among the signals from other access points.


Since the 5 GHz band is less congested, I can see both the repeater and the router here. The router's signal isn't very strong, but it's there.


Data transfer speed test, with the repeater connected to the router over 5 GHz.
Point X2, connected to the repeater: blue/green for 2.4 GHz, red/white for 5 GHz.


A comparison of 5 GHz speeds with the router (blue/green) and the repeater (red/white).
I wanted to run a similar comparison on the 2.4 GHz band, but although the smartphone connected to the router, I couldn't get the test to run properly. The speed was around 200–300 KB/s.


Point X1. Here I tested the repeater's speed on the 2.4 GHz band (blue/green) and the 5 GHz band (yellow/orange).

At this spot, the smartphone wouldn't even connect to the router on 2.4 GHz. On 5 GHz, the speed was around 5–10 Mbps, so I didn't run a comparison.


During testing, I started suspecting that my smartphone wasn't letting me test the repeater at full speed, so I ran a small additional experiment. I used another phone, a Lenovo P2, and repeated the test with the repeater near the router.
The results on the left are with the phone connected to the router; on the right, to the repeater. As you can see, I got the same 70 Mbps as in the test with my own phone.



Conclusions.
Objectively: I didn't get anywhere near the promised 1200 Mbps. Ethernet limits the speed on one side, while on the WiFi side it may be the smartphone after all, though I still expected more.

The setup is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's extremely simple, which is a plus. On the other hand, that's also a drawback, since there are practically no settings. I would really like at least the option to change the channel, because the repeater chooses which channel to use based on some criteria of its own. For example, on 5 GHz, the router and repeater ended up using the same channel.

Subjectively: The repeater has made a real difference, especially because the phone or tablet's position has less effect on the connection. WiFi has even started working in some parts of the apartment, whereas before it was hard to call it working at all, especially on 2.4 GHz. I tested by browsing Facebook and other websites on two devices at once. My wife's Samsung was connected on 2.4 GHz (that's the only band her phone supports), while mine used 5 GHz. There was no lag or slowdown, even in places where there had basically been no connection before.

The repeater works reliably. It does get warm, but not excessively. My biggest complaint is the odd way the heatsink is installed, which I mentioned above. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with it.

As I mentioned above, I now want to simply turn off the 2.4 GHz band on the router and let the repeater handle it. That should also make the airwaves a little less congested.

That's all from me. I hope this was useful. The store provided the promo code BGAKMZWF, which should bring the price down to $22.99.