IR remote extenders

IR remote extenders

All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated system,
is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone to
interference. Anything out there I've missed?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders

Soundhaspriority wrote:
> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated system,
> is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone to
> interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
>
>

I have the X10 Pyramids, they work great for me.

--

"I've also noted that a couple of my regular spammers
have pretty much switched over to phishing and 419s
from pecker pills and sawdust tablets." - Bar0

Re: IR remote extenders


"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:F-2dnfUHqcg7YoDVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews . com ...
> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated
> system, is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone to
> interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>

**I used a nice wired one last week. It worked a treat. I presume you are
restricted to wireless types?

Trevor Wilson

Re: IR remote extenders


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
news:686unlF2rttihU1@mid.individual . net ...
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
> news:F-2dnfUHqcg7YoDVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated
>> system, is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone
>> to interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>>
>
> **I used a nice wired one last week. It worked a treat. I presume you are
> restricted to wireless types?
>
> Trevor Wilson
>
No, wired would be nice. What is it?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders

On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:40:10 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>No, wired would be nice. What is it?

Within the hardwired world, Niles and Xantech are the
conventional players, but some others are nipping at
their heels. Perhaps if you could expand on your requirements
....

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott

Re: IR remote extenders


"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att . net > wrote in message
news:a51t141an6fo6ggt3sn6b3a8mbbt0d74al@4ax . com ...
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:40:10 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
>>No, wired would be nice. What is it?
>
> Within the hardwired world, Niles and Xantech are the
> conventional players, but some others are nipping at
> their heels. Perhaps if you could expand on your requirements
> ....
>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
Hi, Chris,
After living without a TV in my HT setup, I broke down and bought a
flat panel Philips. The Yamaha RXV1 is left and slightly behind my viewing
chair. There are a lot of problems to knock down:

1. The Philips sits on the floor, and the IR eye has a rather narrow angle
of acceptance. I use a Sony MX-3000 touchscreen remote, which has a passive
matrix LCD display. To read the screen, I'm inclined to tilt the remote up
and miss the Philips.

2. The Yamaha is out of the sightline.

3. An open-angle IR emitter within range of the Yamaha would very likely
cause feedback in the IR extender's receiver.

4. The Philips, like many flat panels, interferes with IR repeaters in an
amazing way. In an experiment with an X-10 transmitter pyramid placed behind
and above the Philips, the Philips somehow caused the transmitter to
oscillate, even when there were no X-10 receivers plugged in!

The obvious solution would be a Pronto. But that little gadget, in
combination with the RF repeater, would cost more than the whole TV!

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders

On Mon, 5 May 2008 22:26:41 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

> After living without a TV in my HT setup, I broke down and bought a
>flat panel Philips. The Yamaha RXV1 is left and slightly behind my viewing
>chair. There are a lot of problems to knock down:
>
>1. The Philips sits on the floor, and the IR eye has a rather narrow angle
>of acceptance. I use a Sony MX-3000 touchscreen remote, which has a passive
>matrix LCD display. To read the screen, I'm inclined to tilt the remote up
>and miss the Philips.
>
>2. The Yamaha is out of the sightline.
>
>3. An open-angle IR emitter within range of the Yamaha would very likely
>cause feedback in the IR extender's receiver.
>
>4. The Philips, like many flat panels, interferes with IR repeaters in an
>amazing way. In an experiment with an X-10 transmitter pyramid placed behind
>and above the Philips, the Philips somehow caused the transmitter to
>oscillate, even when there were no X-10 receivers plugged in!
>
>The obvious solution would be a Pronto. But that little gadget, in
>combination with the RF repeater, would cost more than the whole TV!

Xantech makes "special" IR receivers intended for operation
near giant noise sources (like modern TV's!) but they have
comparatively narrow angles of acceptance. 45 degrees is
a number you'll hear, and come to believe...

Niles says that all their current stuff is "plasma/LCD friendly"
but some issues of interference are pretty fundamental. The TV's
radiate amazing amounts of both RF and IR crap, and anybody
nearby has to deal with it.

One obvious solution is to remote the IR receiver and to then
have it be the *only* IR receiver, masking all room IR from the
devices' IR inputs, and allowing only repeated IR into each.
This can work well if an appropriate and intuitive IR receiving
location is available. Ceilings or other high locations
seem to be often successful, and are a treat to use.

Another, but maybe too elaborate, solution is a modern universal
remote that can communicate with a (proprietary) RF base. Some
siting isses can still arise; the RF base probably won't like to
sit near a cable box or a DVD player (although the newest
generations of RF bases are *much* improved). But all issues of
ambient lighting are removed, and there's "no pointing", itself a
small joy in operation.


This is an increasingly important part of my current day-gig,
and I'm finding that the tactile and ergo parts are the most
important to the homeowners who pay for my daily gruel, so
my emphasis is increasingly on learning what questions to
ask, and how to ask 'em. A tool that is used several hours
every day of somebody's life is a big responsibility, so a
certain effort both upfront and in follow-up is worthwhile.

Never tried to do it over the interent though... So...
How married are ye to the Sony remote? More to follow...


Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott

Re: IR remote extenders


"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att . net > wrote in message
news:g44224t4voqne53db56c4u5nhmr3dv9l0l@4ax . com ...
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 22:26:41 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
>> After living without a TV in my HT setup, I broke down and bought a
>>flat panel Philips. The Yamaha RXV1 is left and slightly behind my viewing
>>chair. There are a lot of problems to knock down:
>>
>>1. The Philips sits on the floor, and the IR eye has a rather narrow angle
>>of acceptance. I use a Sony MX-3000 touchscreen remote, which has a
>>passive
>>matrix LCD display. To read the screen, I'm inclined to tilt the remote up
>>and miss the Philips.
>>
>>2. The Yamaha is out of the sightline.
>>
>>3. An open-angle IR emitter within range of the Yamaha would very likely
>>cause feedback in the IR extender's receiver.
>>
>>4. The Philips, like many flat panels, interferes with IR repeaters in an
>>amazing way. In an experiment with an X-10 transmitter pyramid placed
>>behind
>>and above the Philips, the Philips somehow caused the transmitter to
>>oscillate, even when there were no X-10 receivers plugged in!
>>
>>The obvious solution would be a Pronto. But that little gadget, in
>>combination with the RF repeater, would cost more than the whole TV!
>
> Xantech makes "special" IR receivers intended for operation
> near giant noise sources (like modern TV's!) but they have
> comparatively narrow angles of acceptance. 45 degrees is
> a number you'll hear, and come to believe...
>
> Niles says that all their current stuff is "plasma/LCD friendly"
> but some issues of interference are pretty fundamental. The TV's
> radiate amazing amounts of both RF and IR crap, and anybody
> nearby has to deal with it.
>
> One obvious solution is to remote the IR receiver and to then
> have it be the *only* IR receiver, masking all room IR from the
> devices' IR inputs, and allowing only repeated IR into each.
> This can work well if an appropriate and intuitive IR receiving
> location is available. Ceilings or other high locations
> seem to be often successful, and are a treat to use.

I agree. Pronto et al., but price is the problem.
>
> Another, but maybe too elaborate, solution is a modern universal
> remote that can communicate with a (proprietary) RF base. Some
> siting isses can still arise; the RF base probably won't like to
> sit near a cable box or a DVD player (although the newest
> generations of RF bases are *much* improved). But all issues of
> ambient lighting are removed, and there's "no pointing", itself a
> small joy in operation.
>
That would be the Pronto et al. The obstacle here is price: the Philips
"perfect pixel 47" 1080p set cost "only" $1365 through Buy . com . It just
goes against my nature to pay the same for something much less central. It
certainly would be a delight to have complete low level authoring control of
the screen appearance. And a modern TFT screen would eliminate the viewing
angle dilemma.
>
> This is an increasingly important part of my current day-gig,
> and I'm finding that the tactile and ergo parts are the most
> important to the homeowners who pay for my daily gruel, so
> my emphasis is increasingly on learning what questions to
> ask, and how to ask 'em. A tool that is used several hours
> every day of somebody's life is a big responsibility, so a
> certain effort both upfront and in follow-up is worthwhile.
>
> Never tried to do it over the interent though... So...
> How married are ye to the Sony remote? More to follow...
>
I'm not enthralled by it, although the physical quality of the thing is very
impressive. I find it more usable than an RCA 815 backlit universal, because
the Sony labels are visible in the dark. With the 815, only the label on the
key itself is visible. I considered a PDA based alternative, but PDA
screens, being pressure sensitive, are not made of glass, which makes them
undurable when direct finger press is used. And a stylus in the dark --
forget it.

>
> Much thanks, as always,
>
And thanks to you,
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders

On Wed, 7 May 2008 10:48:52 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>> Another, but maybe too elaborate, solution is a modern universal
>> remote that can communicate with a (proprietary) RF base. Some
>> siting isses can still arise; the RF base probably won't like to
>> sit near a cable box or a DVD player (although the newest
>> generations of RF bases are *much* improved). But all issues of
>> ambient lighting are removed, and there's "no pointing", itself a
>> small joy in operation.
>>
>That would be the Pronto et al. The obstacle here is price: the Philips
>"perfect pixel 47" 1080p set cost "only" $1365 through Buy . com . It just
>goes against my nature to pay the same for something much less central. It
>certainly would be a delight to have complete low level authoring control of
>the screen appearance. And a modern TFT screen would eliminate the viewing
>angle dilemma.

I'm not personally a fan of touchscreens (although the big
Crestrons are nice, for the price of a good used car) and
tend to strongly recommend remote controls with real ("hard")
buttons and a small monochrome screen. My (and I'd guess
also your) iron-clad requirement is that it can be
programmed on your computer and the program simply
transferred to (and from) the remote.

In this category the Universal Remote Control brand has
two models that I like. The MX850 has five configurable
buttons on each side of the screen, a limit of five
characters on the screen, and a single "Main" button
below the screen to return to the top of the tree.
Serial port connection to your computer.

The model MX900 has six buttons on one side of the screen,
a limit of seven characters on the screen, and two
return-to-the-top buttons, "Listen" and "Watch".
USB connection to the programming computer.

Both have lighting for all buttons, RF capability, logical
navigation and transport controls, dedicated buttons
for cable/sat functions like guide, info, menu, and
cost about $400. RF bases are $150 or less.

Access to programming code is in flux, and you'd need
to check with supplier if you got interested in one.
Originally they came with a program disc; lately not.
Might depend on the retailer. I program *all* of our
customers' remotes, for a fee, which extends to a good
amount of handholding and follow-up, all stuff that
wouldn't apply to a technical person like you.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott

Re: IR remote extenders


"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att . net > wrote in message
news:3ne42490qifedo6c8jfmkbql9apti76um8@4ax . com ...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 10:48:52 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
>>> Another, but maybe too elaborate, solution is a modern universal
>>> remote that can communicate with a (proprietary) RF base. Some
>>> siting isses can still arise; the RF base probably won't like to
>>> sit near a cable box or a DVD player (although the newest
>>> generations of RF bases are *much* improved). But all issues of
>>> ambient lighting are removed, and there's "no pointing", itself a
>>> small joy in operation.
>>>
>>That would be the Pronto et al. The obstacle here is price: the Philips
>>"perfect pixel 47" 1080p set cost "only" $1365 through Buy . com . It just
>>goes against my nature to pay the same for something much less central. It
>>certainly would be a delight to have complete low level authoring control
>>of
>>the screen appearance. And a modern TFT screen would eliminate the viewing
>>angle dilemma.
>
> I'm not personally a fan of touchscreens (although the big
> Crestrons are nice, for the price of a good used car) and
> tend to strongly recommend remote controls with real ("hard")
> buttons and a small monochrome screen. My (and I'd guess
> also your) iron-clad requirement is that it can be
> programmed on your computer and the program simply
> transferred to (and from) the remote.
>
> In this category the Universal Remote Control brand has
> two models that I like. The MX850 has five configurable
> buttons on each side of the screen, a limit of five
> characters on the screen, and a single "Main" button
> below the screen to return to the top of the tree.
> Serial port connection to your computer.
>
[snip]

You've gotten me to take a good look at their product line, and I've
identified a candidate: the TX-1000. I understand your dislike of
touchscreens, but my audio components are older, relying more on dedicated
buttons than menus, so I think I'd have trouble with a hard button solution.
The one concern I have is mentioned in this review:
* w w w .audioholics . com /reviews/remote-controls/universal-remote-control-tx-1000-medius/setup-using-the-remote-and-conclusion ,
which makes a comment about interference:

"Placing the base station is a very important task. You'll find that RF
interference will quickly become the bane of your existence."

similar to yours, and which remind me of a problem with the X-10 Pyramids.
Fifty yards from my window, in a neighbor's back yard, is an outdoor pond
with a fishtank heater. The heater sets off the X-10. The X-10 receiver is
obviously the cheapest handful of components that can function at 418 mHz.
The review of the TX-1000 mentions similar sensitivity. It's hard to believe
that they chose an unselective design, but that's the implication. Do you
happen to be familiar with the characteristics of the Pronto RF system?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders

On Wed, 7 May 2008 21:48:57 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
<nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:

>You've gotten me to take a good look at their product line, and I've
>identified a candidate: the TX-1000. I understand your dislike of
>touchscreens, but my audio components are older, relying more on dedicated
>buttons than menus, so I think I'd have trouble with a hard button solution.

The "hard" buttons are intended for universally used functions,
mostly... and the device-specific stuff is put into the
on-screen buttons. This is difficult to describe in a Newsgroup
but easy to imagine if you were to be designing the machine
yourself. You'd have common functions on fixed "hard"
buttons and device-specific functions on varying, associated-
with-the-screen buttons.

Ferzample, volume controls, mute, channnel up/down are major
fixed, dedicated hard buttons. Of course the volume controls
work the same with all sources, but the channel up/down
will operate different devices when watching cable/sat
or when listening to the radio.

But when you're watching a DVD the associated-with-the-screen
buttons have specific DVD-only functions like subtitles, audio
track choice, etc.

Or, when watching cable/sat the screen has specific cable/sat-
only buttons like on-demand, live, record, music channels,
or whatever.

There's a (small) art to designing a good remote control,
so I've emphasized the particular device's access to
programming code as particularly important to you. At these
price levels, you want either to be able to hire a known-good
programmer who'll burnish the result to taste, or (and what I'd
recommend for you, as opposed to my local non-technical customers)
complete access to both the programming code and the factory updates.

Haven't tried, but for half a KiloBuck, I'd insist fairly
purposefully, ....and it might happen, on being provided the code.

Of course, I'd be glad to help, via the Internet, to contribute
whatever I could to the programming process. I have complete
"devices" for most common hardware, and these are just plugged into
the framework. I'd also be very interested in your philosophy
of design in case ours would differ significantly - I don't
get any interesting feedback locally.


>The one concern I have is mentioned in this review:
> * w w w .audioholics . com /reviews/remote-controls/universal-remote-control-tx-1000-medius/setup-using-the-remote-and-conclusion ,
>which makes a comment about interference:
>
>"Placing the base station is a very important task. You'll find that RF
>interference will quickly become the bane of your existence."
>
>similar to yours, and which remind me of a problem with the X-10 Pyramids.
>Fifty yards from my window, in a neighbor's back yard, is an outdoor pond
>with a fishtank heater. The heater sets off the X-10. The X-10 receiver is
>obviously the cheapest handful of components that can function at 418 mHz.
>The review of the TX-1000 mentions similar sensitivity. It's hard to believe
>that they chose an unselective design, but that's the implication. Do you
>happen to be familiar with the characteristics of the Pronto RF system?

My (small-ish) experience of the Pronto's is that their issues with
RF intereference are much the same as everybody else's. When they
were designed, the world was clean and pure, but that world ended
with the Brave New version. These small companies take a few years
to get better armored, and the survivors are mostly up-to-snuff
today. And, everybody's on 418 MHz, including Crestron, and nobody's
protected, so it's a "hardware issue".

My take is that the earlier RF "bases" (receivers) were essentially
unshielded, plastic cases and open circuit boards, and that the
interference issues were mostly baseband rather than RF. Fortunately
easily solvable, and (with current hardware) pretty much solved.
The world's a nasty, noisy place, but that's a hard lesson to learn.

Much thanks, as always, and sorry to get so verbose,

Chris Hornbeck
"It's for compatibility with 8-Track."
-scott

Re: IR remote extenders


"Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att . net > wrote in message
news:gku4245vi5uvfve77ujr7jsl8cd0hccbea@4ax . com ...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 21:48:57 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
> <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
>>You've gotten me to take a good look at their product line, and I've
>>identified a candidate: the TX-1000. I understand your dislike of
>>touchscreens, but my audio components are older, relying more on dedicated
>>buttons than menus, so I think I'd have trouble with a hard button
>>solution.
>
> The "hard" buttons are intended for universally used functions,
> mostly... and the device-specific stuff is put into the
> on-screen buttons. This is difficult to describe in a Newsgroup
> but easy to imagine if you were to be designing the machine
> yourself. You'd have common functions on fixed "hard"
> buttons and device-specific functions on varying, associated-
> with-the-screen buttons.
>
> Ferzample, volume controls, mute, channnel up/down are major
> fixed, dedicated hard buttons. Of course the volume controls
> work the same with all sources, but the channel up/down
> will operate different devices when watching cable/sat
> or when listening to the radio.
>
> But when you're watching a DVD the associated-with-the-screen
> buttons have specific DVD-only functions like subtitles, audio
> track choice, etc.
>
> Or, when watching cable/sat the screen has specific cable/sat-
> only buttons like on-demand, live, record, music channels,
> or whatever.
>
I have some exposure to this. The Sony MX-3000 has 28 active squares. Each
square contains, I think, four potential symbols, in an assortment that was
intended to provide a decent compromise in possible use. For common devices,
such as TV and DVD, the available symbols map almost perfectly, though even
common devices have idiosyncratic functions. For example, the Philips (and I
know you're familiar with this, I'm just exhibiting my own reasoning) has
three colored buttons, red, green, and blue, that correspond to certain
on-screen menu choices. These obviously have no parallel in a monochrome
touchscreen. But for the most part, it works well. On the other hand, a
Yamaha RX-V1, although it has an on-screen interface, was designed before
the the current trend toward button minimization. The number of discrete
labels is horrendous. For example, there are twelve sound fields, each with
a text label, and two variants of these selected by a mode key. I ended up
mapping most of this with the numeric keypad of the Sony, but using these
without the onscreen reference is a memory job, which I would like to do
because the onscreen interface is available only through analog video, while
my video sources are all HDMI.

So having six buttons adjacent to a small text screen isn't ideal. It would
require breaking the soundfields into two menus. Ditto for my ancient Sony
TA-E1000 processor, the sound fields of which I am inordinatley fond of.

>Haven't tried, but for half a KiloBuck, I'd insist fairly
>purposefully, ....and it might happen, on being provided the code.

>Of course, I'd be glad to help, via the Internet, to contribute
>whatever I could to the programming process. I have complete
>"devices" for most common hardware, and these are just plugged into
>the framework. I'd also be very interested in your philosophy
>of design in case ours would differ significantly - I don't
>get any interesting feedback locally.

I expected no less. You are a very nice person.

[snip]

Sometime in the future, we'll have an interesting back-and-forth on this.
Perhaps prices will come down. I don't understand how a nice remote can cost
10X that of a twelve channel satellite receiver you can clip on your belt,
or a bluetooth frequency hopping transceiver dongle ;)

You're not verbose, you're interesting. There is a difference.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders


"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:WImdnS-pz6EGHIPVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews . com ...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
> news:686unlF2rttihU1@mid.individual . net ...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
>> news:F-2dnfUHqcg7YoDVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>>> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated
>>> system, is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone
>>> to interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>>>
>>
>> **I used a nice wired one last week. It worked a treat. I presume you are
>> restricted to wireless types?
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
>>
> No, wired would be nice. What is it?

**A local type. I obtained it from here:

* w w w .wagner . net .au/

Part #IR1183 Wholesale cost: AUS$69.00.

It may not be in their retail catalogue yet.

There are likely to be many similar items available in your area.

Trevor Wilson

Re: IR remote extenders


"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
news:687jciF2qie5hU1@mid.individual . net ...
>
> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
> news:WImdnS-pz6EGHIPVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews . com ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
>> news:686unlF2rttihU1@mid.individual . net ...
>>>
>>> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
>>> news:F-2dnfUHqcg7YoDVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>>>> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated
>>>> system, is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly prone
>>>> to interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>>>>
>>>
>>> **I used a nice wired one last week. It worked a treat. I presume you
>>> are restricted to wireless types?
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson
>>>
>> No, wired would be nice. What is it?
>
> **A local type. I obtained it from here:
>
> * w w w .wagner . net .au/
>
> Part #IR1183 Wholesale cost: AUS$69.00.
>
> It may not be in their retail catalogue yet.
>
> There are likely to be many similar items available in your area.
>
> Trevor Wilson
I do not see it, but I'm oggling the "universal touchscreen remote deluxe"
The U.S. has become such a backwater!

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: IR remote extenders


"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
news:g8adnUwXfodGX4LVnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
> news:687jciF2qie5hU1@mid.individual . net ...
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
>> news:WImdnS-pz6EGHIPVnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews . com ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio . com .au> wrote in message
>>> news:686unlF2rttihU1@mid.individual . net ...
>>>>
>>>> "Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere . com > wrote in message
>>>> news:F-2dnfUHqcg7YoDVnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews . com ...
>>>>> All I've found, aside from the extremely expensive Pronto integrated
>>>>> system, is the common wideband 418 mHz type, which is exceedingly
>>>>> prone to interference. Anything out there I've missed?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **I used a nice wired one last week. It worked a treat. I presume you
>>>> are restricted to wireless types?
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson
>>>>
>>> No, wired would be nice. What is it?
>>
>> **A local type. I obtained it from here:
>>
>> * w w w .wagner . net .au/
>>
>> Part #IR1183 Wholesale cost: AUS$69.00.
>>
>> It may not be in their retail catalogue yet.
>>
>> There are likely to be many similar items available in your area.
>>
>> Trevor Wilson
> I do not see it, but I'm oggling the "universal touchscreen remote deluxe"
> The U.S. has become such a backwater!

**I can email the information if you wish. I can even purchase and freight a
product to you, but, I suspect, a similar product would be available in the
US for less money.

Trevor Wilson