For the past 7+ years I have been running the same class of WiFi equipment: The Apple Airport Express N v2.
I have been exceedingly successful of running these routers. They are rock-solid devices, and they support many more channels than the typical expensive "prosumer" routers, since the Airport Express supports DFS. Why did the tech press slam the Airport Express as being "overpriced and under-powered"? Because the tech press is filled with idiots.
How awesome is DFS? Let me tell you.
I live in the city where there are 40+ visible WiFi access points in my vicinity. Each of these routers are all trying to scream over one another to be heard. There are only really 6 or so non-overlapping WiFi channels (2.4GHz and 5 GHz). Each of the standard channels have at least 5 visible access points.
Except the DFS channels, which no one seems to use.
So when I boot up MY Airport Express, it lands on Channel 52, where there is literally no competition. My house gets the entire channel to myself. All those 40+ other homes share channels, but I get unencumbered high speeds.
But what about DFS downsides, like clients that don't support DFS, or being booted of of DFS when a radar station comes on line? Well those things have never happened to me over the past 7 years.
Maybe it happened to someone once, but I doubt that really happened in
the real world. Instead, this make-believe were likely simple lies being promoted by competitors selling expensive, mediocre equipment.
And what about using "old" 802.11n? Well, the reality is that 802.11n is far faster than the Comcast/Xfinity-based service that is available in my house. A "faster" router simply cannot speed up my Internet.
There you go. The Apple Airport Express. Don't replace yours unless you know what you're doing.