>Ing... I don't think your way of comparing IR
>codes is a valid or even useful test.

Why? Are you disputing whether the sound
represents signal? Are you disputing whether EM
field strength correlates to IR output? It may
not be a perfect correlation, but it is a very
strong one, given the low power loss/heat
dissipation aspects of LEDs.

>If brightness was the problem, then we could
>prove it by simply getting farther and farther
>away from a device until it worked.

...Which is exactly what is being observed when
the controls start to work when you aim away from
the reciever.

>The remote has to work within a range of IR
>brightness (and ignore that brightness) since
>the remote may vary considerably in how close it
>is to the device when used.

I would tend to agree, IF everything were working
perfectly, which it is not. The fact is, signal
stength is a factor, as is proven by the
necessity to aim away, and my ability to predict
the effect of the tape, as reported in the above
message by Fraenhawk.

>A visual or audible representation of the IR
>sequence would appear as one or a few "flashes"
>or "beeps", but is actually a pattern of bits
>(ON and OFF) of a certain length at a certain
>frequency.

These "bits" are generally encoded in RC5 or RECS
80, then modulated at 20KHz to 30KHz.

>You press OPEN/CLOSE TRAY for your DVD player
>and you only want the tray to do one thing, Open
>or close, EVEN IF YOU KEEP HOLDING DOWN THE
>REMOTE BUTTON.

...Yet, if you look at the output of the remote,
you'll find that, if you hold down the button, it
keeps transmitting, even after the door is open.

>The "ONCE ONLY" functions may still be sent
>multiple times by the cinema remote, in an
>attempt to ensure that the device sees at least
>ONE of them.

The factory remote does too, no doubt.

>The few devices discovered that work with their
>original remotes but NOT reliably with the
>Cinema's commands are getting a cleaner (once
>only, with a pause) version of the IR sequence
>from their own remote than they get from the
>Cinema. The visual or audible representations of
>these two DIFFERENT IR sequences would appear
>nearly the same. The difference would not be
>discernable by the human eye or ear. The
>BRIGHTNESS would, but the content of the code
>would not.

1. I find it difficult to belive that the
original factory remote has some buttons which
send a continuous signal (like volume), and some
which send a momentary signal (like open/close).
I would be interested to see some evidence of
this.

2. Why would the human ear be unable to discern a
difference in code (i.e. sound) LENGTH?

3. If this were truly the problem, then simply
aiming away from the device, which has been found
to work reliably (as I understand it), could not
work reliably. Why? Because the odds of all of
the code or none of the code getting through is
much greater than the odds of PART of the code
getting through, as the codes are sent in a spilt
second, during which the remote is not moving,
nor is anything in the signal's (rather
convoluted) path. Statistically speaking, the
odds of a single occurance of the signal getting
through, without its brethren, is well below 50%,
which should result in more failures than
successes, which is not what has been reported
when aiming away from the reciever.

>As I stated before, my Pronto and the Prontoedit
>software that works with it allow me to "SEE" a
>representation of the IR code sequence learned
>by the Pronto. It is easy to compare these
>sequences between devices, and between the
>specific codes for a particular device.

I should be able to accomplish the same goal by
attaching my coil to the microphone input on my
sound card and digitizing the EM chatter of a
remote, then displaying the resultant waveform
onscreen. I will be attempting this shortly.

>In any case, I have often seen two or more very
>different appearing IR code sequences that still
>work the same function on a device. When
>analized, the sequences usually vary ONLY in the
>number of times the basic minimum pattern is
>repeated.

Hopefully my soundcard experiment will be able to
demonstrate this phenomenon. You say this
happens with Sony remotes?

>Codes learned from the Cinema are notoriously
>LONGER than the "same" function learned from
>most original device remotes.

I have no explanation for this.

>I think the Cinema just doesn't have a pure
>enough version of the IR command for some more
>sensitive device's functions to work reliably.

Since it is not learned, but rather sent in a
protocol programmed at the factory, I do not see
how it could be "impure."

>Sorry, Ing. Keep trying, though. Between us
>we'll master the beast.

I suspect that, together, we already know more
about it than 98% of One For All employees, and
this includes tech support. :)

-=Ingenious=-