Hello all! I'd like to pick some brains regarding which remote would be a better choice, the Universal Remote Control RF-20 (which I have), or the URC-200 which I can get for about 25 bucks cheaper. For the most part I am satisfied with the RF-20, except for the dim red backlighting, and the global macros which seem to be the way this remote operates. The URC-200 appears to offer brighter backlighting, better keys (with the glossy coating), and better macro capabilities. I can return the RF-20 within the next 30 days for a full refund. What would you do in my case?

I briefly tried a Harmony 520 which left me with the feeling that it was built very cheaply. The case creaked when pressing certain keys, and the IR emitter was weak for example. The web based programming was also time consuming, clunky, and hit or miss at times.

I'm happy with the way the URC remotes program, although the macros leave something to be desired on the RF-20. I'd like to be able to set up power on/off events for different activities; watch TV, watch DVD, listen to music. I was able to teach the RF-20 the discretes needed to change inputs on my television by assigning advanced codes to my old OFA Cinema 7+ (a real work horse, but not enough memory for my current needs), and them teaching them to my URC remote.

Are the macro capabilities of the URC-200 up to the tasks I have planned? If you could choose between the two remotes, which one would you select? Any advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

As you've noted, the URC-200 offers much better backlighting, the gemstone buttons, and slightly more flexible macro programming. However, there is one significant drawback.

I have used the MX-500, the URC-300, the RF-20, and now the MX-350. For some reason, Universal Remote Control included a different learning methodology in the URC series remotes. It requires that you press the button on the remote-to-be-learned twice rather than just once on the others. This, of course, would not be a problem in and of itself, but it does clearly indicate that something in the "learning" hardware and/or firmware is different in the URC series. More importantly is the fact that it simply does NOT work as well.

The other remotes I listed above have performed almost flawlessly as learning remotes, rarely if ever failing to correctly learn everything I threw at them on the first try. Not the URC-300, however. It frequently required many, many repeat attempts before learning some codes correctly, and with several remotes (including the one for my Pioneer A/V receiver), it simply never correctly learned ANY codes no matter how many times I tried. And Heaven knows I tried, and tried, and tried.

I have read numerous similar reports in this forum regarding the URC series, so I'm fairly certain the problem was not unique to my particular unit.

If you need learning capability, I would encourage you to stay with the RF-20, or spring for the MX-350, which is the same form-factor. It offers all of the benefits of the URC-200, PLUS the reliable learning ability of the other URC brand remotes. I am very happy with mine.

Excellent informative reply and I thank you for it. I can get an MX-350 for around the same price as the RF-20. How does the backlighting on the MX-350 compare to the URC-200? I was really bummed out as to how anemic the RF-20 backlight looks. On the MX-350 the light appears to be blue. Is it at least as bright as the URC-200?

I agree that the RF-20 does a good job of learning. I have 6 components in it now, and the only issue I had with teaching it was with a Philips DVD 3960/37. For some reason certain learned functions only half work. Teach it subtitle or audio language toggle command and it will only send one instance of the toggle despite how many times I press the button. The same commands that are in the component menu work the way they are supposed to. Just not when learned from the original Philips remote. I tried teaching my OFA remote the same commands from the original and then having the RF-20 learn them from the OFA. Still wouldn't work. Finally I located the discrete commands from an advanced OFA database, put them in the cinema 7 and they worked correctly. When I tried to teach them to the RF-20---- you guessed it. . . it didn't work. This issue only effects my Philips DVD player. Since I have the needed commands in the DVD component menu, I can live with the problem. I would much rather be able to map the keys in my preference, but it looks like a no go.

Thanks again for your reply!

URC has used both learning methods before - single and double tap. On the computer programmable models which let you select WHICH you want to use, the double-tap version is indicated as the more reliable for difficult codes, such as toggle bits and certain formats.

I've personally had more BAD code learns accepted as good via single tap then double tap (which more reliably rejects bad codes, but doesn't always seem to have a better overall success rate).

I have one specific remote here where the single tap method will always learn the code, but they'll never work. And the double tap version will learn the first code but always claim an immediate time out on the second learn. Very bizarre; the same remote learned to another brand of remote and then taught to the URC remote works fine...

The backlighting on the MX-350 is basically the same as on the URC-300, just a different color. The MX-350 is a light blue, and the URC-300 is more of a turquoise. Also, the URC-300 inverts the text & background when backlit (making the text light and the background dark), like earlier Universal remotes. The MX-350, however, does not invert the text & background, but leaves the text black and illuminates the background. I'll see if I can put all three of them side-by-side in the dark, and take a picture of them with their backlights on.

The MX-350 AND the URC-300 have vastly superior backlighting to the RF-20.

That's interesting. In that case, I suppose it would be nice to be able to switch between the two modes.

I notice that Universal advertised the double-tap method as providing reliable learning with a broader range of remotes/codes. My experience was certainly the opposite, however. It was a constant source of frustration with an otherwise-excellent remote.

I also notice that the URC series no longer shows on their website, and is no longer carried by Circuit City or Best Buy. I wonder if these remotes have been discontinued.

I want to thank all those who commented above. I was sort of sitting on the fence between whether to keep the RF-20 or get the MX-350. I think I'm going to keep the RF-20 after all. The reason being is that I finally have it programmed the way I want. I have created several reliable macros that consistantly work after much trial and error. The global macros, while not the most desirable, were worked around by putting a 1.5 sec delay on the assigned key, so the key could retain its original function. Using this method isn't that bad at all.

My reservations about changing remotes at this point is that I might find myself jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I'd have to mail order another remote, and if I run into the problems below, it might be a hassle to return it. My major concern is that the MX-350 and URC-200 remotes might possibly introduce new problems in that their internal databases aren't as up to date as the remote I already have and might leave me in the lurch if I can't reliably teach them the devices I have. Drawback is I have a remote with inferior backlighting, and cheaper buttons. I guess everything is a trade off at this price point.

Thanks again for all your input!

If you ever do get a urc-200 or mx-350, DO NOT attempt to clone the rf20 to either of them, you will ruin the remote.

Yikes! It will actually ruin it? In what way? Can you be more specific?

Maybe that's what happened to mine. I DID try to clone my RF-20 to my first MX-350. The 350's display froze up at the end of the process, so I reset it back to the factory defaults and didn't think any more of it. It appeared to function normally, except that it wouldn't accept any device codes. I thought it was having that problem BEFORE I attempted to clone the RF-20, but now I'm not so sure... I honestly don't remember whether I tried setting device codes before cloning or not.

I am still waiting for a Return Authorization number on the dead (well, wounded actually) one. Maybe it wasn't defective after all.

How in the world could the process of cloning actually break the remote? Odd...

Backlighting compared: URC-300, MX-350, RF-20.

It wipes out RAM some how, only remedy would be send it in for service.

That is accurate of do not clone the two. The MX-350 has been revised with improved firmware, the newer units have MX-350 at the bottom of the remote, no longer "Osiris" on the bottom of the new version. There is a warning label enclosed with the new, do not clone with an old MX-350 Osiris!! This will cause the one receiving the clone to "LOCK" up! Only way to reset is to connect to the PCL-300.

Yes the URC series is discontinued.

I just notice I have two types of backlighting on my urc-300's:

My first post, had to make a comment on this subject. I needed a new universal RF remote for my bedroom plasma TV, with the cable box source in an upstairs room overhead. I have owned a MX-500 for my main HT system for a while now, love it. Wanted to go URC again, went to CC and picked up the RF20/base station bundle. Worked great...until that night. Then I realized the backlighting of the RF20 is pretty useless.

Luckily, I was able to locate an on-line vendor who still had some URC-200s. What a difference! The 200 lights up like my MX-500, works so much better than the RF20 in dark rooms.

Looks to me like this is not a case of "new and improved", but really just cost cutting by the manufacturer. :(