In comparing the Cinema 7 with the 15-1994 there is really no contest when it comes to making a decision. For starters, the 15-1994 remote has backlighting which really comes in handy. It also is much more attractive than the Cinema 7. It's more erogonomic and it has normal buttons instead of those cheesy written numerals. I know asthetics shouldn't be a major determining factor, but with all technical aspects of the remotes being virtually equal, there really is no question which one to buy. Now of course if you can find the cinema 7 for $6 like some guy mentioned in a previous thread then you should go that route, but if it comes down to paying $25 for Cinema 7 or $29.95 for the 15-1994 then go for the 15-1994. The only downside is that it says Radio Shack on it :)

Good point, Dave. My only counterpoint is that the cheesy colorful buttons and text on the face of a cinema make it much easier to spot among coffee tale clutter.

Oh wait... This is a dead horse. I apologize. I was taught to never beat a dead horse.


Dave ;-)

On the other hand though, if you have a serious HT setup with quality components, you don't want to operate it with a cheesy looking remote. The Cinema 7 does seem kind of 'Fisher Price toyish.'

But then again, the nicer one does say Radio Shack. Hmmm. 'Can't win. ;-)

Radio Shack 15-1994 advantages:
1. It is backlit.
2. Some say it looks better.
3. Some prefer the generic number button shape,
as it is easier to press when looking at the
remote.

Cinema 7 IQ advantages:
1. Glow in the dark buttons waste no power.
2. Some say it feels better.
3. Some prefer the number shaped number keys, as
they are easier to locate without looking at the
remote.
4. It is at least $5 cheaper.
5. It puts out a much stronger signal.
6. Some have said that the 15-1994 has some
subtle programming flaws not present in the
Cinema 7 IQ.
7. Most importantly, it does not say "Radio
Shack" on it.

My decision: Cinema 7 IQ.

-=Ingenious=-

On your Cinema, what postings backup your #5 and #6 claims?

Yes, please tell us where you got that info re: #5 & #6???

I have BOTH the RS & the CIN 7. Tested both of them in response to your post and there was NO difference in signal transmission!!!! I must therefore assume you must have had old or inferior batteries in the Radio Shack remote to have made this error in your experiment.

As for me, the Radio Shack remote is much better!

Robert, Mr. Funk,

I've done considerable research on the Cinema 7,
and have probably read 90+% of what the web has
to say about them. I don't feel the inclination
to do all that research again, just to determine
WHERE I read what, just to try and prove points 5
and 6 to you two, so you'll have to settle for
this: In this "One For All" message board, thread
92 contains partial support for both points. The
support for point 5 is in the message by Dan
Barham, and the support for point 6 is in the
message by Craig Nekola.

If you really wish to settle this, you'll need to
attach a solar cell to a volt meter, and see
which one really puts out more, and by how much.
Further, there is the issue of dispersion, i.e. a
laser may put out more light than an LED, but if
you're outside the beam, it puts out nothing.

-=Ingenious=-

Oh,

So basically, you can't prove #5 & #6 either way! Reading about equipment without using it does NOT make you an expert!

Go to the library and check out some books on how to fly, then go out and give it a try! Whoops... how did that happen... it was not in the manual!!! CRASH!!!!!

A solar cell & a volt meter? He..He.. Now we know the true extent of your testing capabilities!

Scott

Lighten up Scott. He never said he was an expert. Most of his items on his original post start with "Some say" or "Some have". To me, this means he has done a lot of research reading what others have said or posted. I for one, find this information valuable when trying to make a decision. It's good to know what others have found with both items.

Dave

Mr. Funk,

>So basically, you can't prove #5 & #6 either
>way! Reading about equipment without using it
>does NOT make you an expert!

If you will not accept data gathered from this
forum as evidence, then perhaps I can't "prove"
items #5 and #6. However, seeing as I would then
also be unable to "prove" that you exist, I see
to reason to continue this discourse under such
terms.

>Go to the library and check out some books on
>how to fly, then go out and give it a try!
>Whoops... how did that happen... it was not in
>the manual!!! CRASH!!!!!

You're confusing two types of learning. It is
true that one can not easily learn to be an adept
pilot from book, having had no exposure to an
actual plane, or even a proper flight simulator,
just as one could not master martial arts from a
book. Why? Because in order to master these
skills one must not only learn fact, but train
the mind for precise timing and movement.

Now, on the other hand, there are many forms of
knowledge which can easily be learned from books
with no actual experience. For instance, I think
you would agree that I would not have to take a
tour of all 50 states just to learn the names of
the state capitals. Many things can be learned
simply by attentive reading, provided that one
has a good memory, and that the area to be
learned does not have an element of timing
involved.

>A solar cell & a volt meter? He..He.. Now we
>know the true extent of your testing
>capabilities!

You say this in a derisive manner, as if the use
of a solar cell is an improper test. On what do
you base this? The solar cell converts the
radiated IR energy into DC current, at a known
level of power conversion efficiency. This can
be used to derive the total power output, or, in
cases where the conversion loss is NOT known, it
can still be used to determine the power output
RATIO of the two remotes.

If you were to send the Cinema 7 to a laboratory
to have its ratiated output analyzed
professionally, what substantially different
method do you think THEY would use?

I wonder, what is the source of your hostility?
Are you suffering from some form of buyer's
remorse?

-=Ingenious=-

Ingenious:

I have absolutely NO buyers remorse on either remote! Call UEI, and ask them about #5 & #6! You may be surprised at the answer given!!!

I prefer knowledge based on actual usage! As for the solar cell method, I base my results using a Photoradiometer!

Happy new year,

Scott

Mr. Funk,

>I have absolutely NO buyers remorse on either
>remote!

Considering you could have had two of whichever
one you prefer, instead of one of each, one could
infer from your professed total lack of buyer's
remorse that you have no preference. Since you
have previously expressed a preference for the
15-1994, I see this as an inconsistency. Please
explain.

>Call UEI, and ask them about #5 & #6! You may
be surprised at the answer given!!!

UEI's employees have supplied me with nothing but
erroneous information thus far. Ergo, I consider
their opinion irrelevant, and their data highly
suspect, and not to be trusted. (For instance, if
one were to believe them, one would think it
impossible to learn functions to keys other than
the "L" keys.)

>I prefer knowledge based on actual usage!

I see no harm in augmenting such experience with
a more objective form of testing.

>As for the solar cell method, I base my results
using a Photoradiometer!

1. There is no such word as "photoradiometer."

2. Assuming you meant "radiometer", I have one,
and it is wholly inappropriate for this form of
testing.

3. Assuming you mean photgraphic light meter, or
"photometer", the use of a solar cell attached to
a meter is not only as good, but is in fact how
you build a photometer. Haven't you ever
wondered how it is that a standard photometer
does not require batteries? It is because it
contains a solar cell.

-=Ingenious=-

Gentlemen;

It's disappointing to see services such as this become degraded due to pedantic messages flying back and forth. Can't we all just live in harmony? I mean, let's not pick each other to death when all ANY of us want is to share information and experiences!

Thanks,

Aron Feuer

Mr. Feuer,

I concur. Although I doubt the prospect of
harmony in this world, this thread IS beginning
to drift off topic, so let's return to the
subject of this thread as initially declared.

I have thought of an 8th advantage of the Cinema
7 vs. the Radio Shack 15-1994. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but isn't this 15-1994 a 6-in-1
controller, whereas the Cinema 7 is a 7-in-1?
I'm not at all certain of this, but if it were
true, that would certainly count as an advantage.
I know that my Cinema 7 barely has enough device
keys to support everything I want it to. One
fewer, and I'd have to start making concessions.

Can anyone say with authority how many devices
the 15-1994 can control?

-=Ingenious=-

Sorry, photoradiometer (Li-Cor 1800
Photoradiometer)is a real device! Check out a nearby university.

Bottom line, you do NOT own either remote!

Sorry to all for allowing this nonsense to continue!

End of this waste of time on my part!

Scott