Ok, I'm kinda new to this learning remote thing, and I need a little help. I'm going to try the radio shack remote tommorow, and see if that helps at all, too.

Basically, I use the proscan DVD code as found in the OFA manual. Some of the keys (up, right, among others) only work if I do not point directly at the DVD player.

The other keys work just fine. I can learn the commands (that do not work) off of the DVD remote, and they work fine that way. Is there any way to get around this? And, why does it happen?

I have no idea why it is happening. You can also REPLACE those iffy built in functions with the LEARNED versions from your original remote. Try that with at least one, and see if you still have the "pointing" problem with it.

The only thing I can imagine that is happening is that the remote overwhelms your DVD's IR receiver when pointed straight at it. I know my Cinema's IR output is strong enough to work around corners from another room, so that could be your trouble.

Let us know if you figure anything else out.

Dave

Well... ended up getting the RS model. Works beautifully.

All the buttons. My girl loves the backlit stuff, and I think it feels really nice (for a remote)

All this for $5 more. Now I gotta go stand in a long-ass line while I wait to return my cinema 7 to best buy. Maybe I'll wait for a few weeks first. =)

Personally, I demand high signal strength from a
remote, and value the dual transmitters of the
Cinema 7, as I hate having to aim the remote. If
your equipment can't take it, why not try placing
a piece of not-quite-opaque tape over the IR
reciever of the DVD player in question?

-=Ingenious=-

Well... This remote was able to work not pointed at the DVD, from about 35 ft away (give or take)

Strong enough for me and my little apartment.

I'm so glad I found this thread! I just purchased a Cinema 7 Learner after reading all the reviews and was amazed that I was able to get every function I wanted for my Sony TV and Panasonic VCR without ever even resorting to using the learning ability.

Then I got to my RCA RC5231Z DVD player and was a little disappointed. Power, Left, Down, and FF were the only 4 keys working and 0522 was the only code for RCA DVDs. I wasn't sure what to do and then saw this thread tonight. Sure enough, I just walked out to my living room and if I point the remote 90 degrees away from the DVD player, every key works!!!

I tried building up multiple pieces of tape over the IR receiver and it helped, but I got to 12 pieces of tape and still couldn't aim directly at it. So I peeled them off and for now will just aim away. Now I'm off to test some of the Advance codes from starbase314 to get a couple other functions working.

Might I suggest trying either a more opaque kind
of tape, or some other more opaque subtance taped
in pace with the existing tape? The key is to
find the right substance, and ammount thereof, to
provide a precise level of IR permiability.

Please let me know if this works. :)

-=Ingenious=-

Ingen: The way I see it, is that some of the keys will not work while pointed towards... others will.

Won't putting tape over the IR reciever sort of cut out the ones that go through normally? Seems to me that the remote has a sort of problem. The keys that worked were the same as mine. (For those that don't know, the RCA is the same as the proscan internally)

Mr. Beetle,

If it's the remote that has a problem, why does
it work when pointed away from the device? I'd
suggest that perhaps there is too much
capacitance somewhere in the reciever circuit, or
something of the kind.

It might be that the buttons that do work have
sufficiently large gaps between pulses that the
capacitance is not a dominating factor. In the
signals sent by the buttons that DON'T work,
perhaps there are pulses temporally closer
together which, when subjected to the capacitance
of the reciever circuitry, start to bleed
together, and confuse the reciever. This would
be supported by the fact that it is the same keys
failing on both of your setups.

It's just an idea. Either way, a proper baffle
on the reciever should be quite able to mimic the
signal intensity of the factory remote, making
all functions work correctly.

Keep in mind that a substance's visible light
permiability does not necesarily reflect -- no
pun intended :) -- the IR permiability of said
substance.

-=Ingenious=-

"The difficult be do right away;
The impossible just takes a little longer."

One other variable to consider when some codes work and others don't....

code purity.

After I found all the Sony TV discrete function codes on my Cinema7 I taught them to my pronto. The Pronto allows viewing a hexidecimal representation of the code sequence learned. What I discovered is that although these codes worked, they were very long. They were in fact much longer than the basic (minimum) length of code the TV expected or needed to see.

My conclusion is that some of the IR codes programmed into the remote by ONEFORALL are likely longer than they need to be. This length (multiple repetitions of the same minimum code sequence) could explain why the Cinemas are so seemingly powerful when controlling most devices, but overwhelm the devices mentioned above. The Proscan DVD may not be able to deal with continuous IR sequence repetition. It may expect a break or pause after the minimum IR sequence. By pointing the remote away from the device it increases the likelyhood that only a portion of the length IR code gets to the device. The device can handle the portion. Pointed straight at the device, the device gets confused because it sees the whole code sent by the remote.

The few codes that DO work pointed straight at the device are probably just cleaner and shorter codes that the device tolerates better.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

Dave

David B.,

I just did some tests with the Cinema 7 and the
original factory remotes for a Sony TV (code
0000) and a Sony VCR (code 0032), using a coil
hooked up to a small audio amplifier, to act as
an EM to audio transducer. I tried the VCR
controls, and the TV controls. I tried the
factory remotes, and the Cinema 7. I tried
holding down buttons, and just tapping them for
an instant.

Here are the results: In all instances where a
button was tapped for an instant, either no code
was produced (if it was tapped too lightly or too
quickly), or a burst of (I think) three pulses
was produced. In all tests, the Cinema 7 sounded
JUST like the Sony remotes. (although it DID
produce a MUCH louder signal, i.e. stronger EM
field.)

If the problem is that too many copies of codes
are being bunched together and confusing the
reciever, then the original factory remote should
stop working if you hold down the buttons, and I
find it difficult to believe such a device would
ever make it to market, much less one by a major
name like RCA or Sony.

Another important point is that a device code
tells the Cinema 7 two things: an IR PROTOCOL to
communicate an 8-bit number to the device, and a
set of default key mappings to assign various
8-bit numbers to appropriate keys. This means
that all codes sent from the remote to the device
should, much like UPC digit coding, all be the
same length. (Unless they employed some form of
temporal coding, which would been very unlikely,
and needlessly complex.)

When you use an "Advanced code", it is not
something the company programmed into the ROM at
the factory. It is simply a request to send an
arbitrary number in the IR protocol selected by
the current DEVICE code.

Therefore, I find the concept that some codes are
"cleaner and shorter" unlikely to the point of
approaching imposibility.

-=Ingenious=-

Ingen: You probably have a valid point. The remote is probably just very powerful. But, how powerful of a remote is needed?

For me, I have a rather small apartment. (Keep in mind, I'm a college kid). My "home theater" (which soon is going to be upgraded to 5.1) conists of a 27" TV, DPL reciever, CD changer, VCR, DVD, 2 big speakers, 2 little and a center channel... (all crappy KLH, but I'm poor! =) )

This is all in an area that is about 15" square, give or take. Include a kitchen and dining area, it's about 35 x 15 (that is the extent of TV viewing)

I am able to point the remote in just about any direction, from anywhere in the room and control things flawlessly.

As for the cinema 7.... I tried learning the commands off of the DVD remote, and then they worked fine. Why would they work OK then, and not direct off pre-programmed codes?

Also, a final off topic Q. I'm getting 5.1 reciever, and currently have DPL. I don't have enough $$$ to upgrade speakers, and barley enough to get a sub and new digital reciever. First off... Where do the big speakers go (for DPL and 5.1). In front, or in rear? Also, I want to get a best buy reciever. (I have some gift certificate $$$, plus friend's discount) What do you suggest for a $350-400 price range?


TIA, and looking forward on the learning response.

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

Clearly some IR emitters are BRIGHTER (stronger) than others. This added brightness helps ensure their commands will travel longer distances. Two candles are visible from farther away than one candle. It has nothing to do with how the remote controls the device. If brightness was the problem, then we could prove it by simply getting farther and farther away from a device until it worked. Since brightness is so variable, it is unlikely that devices are very sensitive to it. 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.

The speed (frequency) at which an IR code sequence is emitted varies widely and the contents of that sequence can vary wildly. 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.

A device, for example, may be set to look for IR codes coming to it at "X" frequency. When it sees IR sequences at it's programmed frequency, it notes their pattern. The pattern may be 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, whatever, bits long. This pattern can be converted from the binary bits to represent the device type (DVD, TV, VCR, etc.), and a number (usually 0 to 255) that refers to a specific function instruction of the device. The rest of the pattern is for error checking and termination (telling the device that this code stops here).

Devices require some "ONCE ONLY" codes like OPEN/CLOSE TRAY or OFF, and some "repetitive" codes like VOL UP and VOL DN. 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. You hit the VOL buttons and you want the Volume of your TV to keep changing until you release the button.

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. Most devices can handle this, simply ignoring redundant commands until a "break" has occured between them. 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.

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. Different device manufacturers (Sony, Pioneer, Yamaha, etc.) use different frequencies. Sony is pretty good in its function code set to keep the same codes working the same function in different devices. But other companies prescribe different numbers to the device functions.

In any case, I have often seen two or more very different appearning 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. Codes learned from the Cinema are notoriously LONGER than the "same" function learned from most original device remotes.

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.


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

Dave ;-)

>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=-

Ingen: So, why do you suggest that if the cinema7 learns my DVD commands, then it works fine? If it was simple power differences, wouldnt the strength of the remote be the same wether or not it's learned or pre-programmed?

Also... just to throw another wrench in (this conversation is fun)

If I hit the buttos that dont work over and over really fast (aimed at the device) some (not many) codes do go through... Just not many.