HD 101: IR blasters, HDMI-CEC, RS-232 and IP control
You'd be hard pressed to find a TV without some sort of extra box attached to it these days -- and with each box comes another remote. The sad part is it doesn't have to be this way, nope, the necessary interaction between devices really isn't that complicated. The problem is the devices just aren't designed to work together, but that isn't because the industry hasn't tried. All the political reasons aside the technology to let your cable box carry on a two way conversation with your TV and other equipment does exist. So we're going to explain what's out there. If you've ever wondered how you can gain more control over your gear using everything from an IR blaster to sending TCP commands via IP, then read on.
Just getting into HD? Check out these other HD 101 features:
HD 101: Overscan and why all TVs do it
What is ATSC, PSIP, QAM, and 8-VSB?
How to use Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD with your PS3
Why there are black bars on HDTVs
This is the king of control protocols in the living room and in fact just about every remote control made in recent history uses it to deliver controls from across a room. It's very basic in that the remote emits light at a wavelength outside our eye's range and the receiving device patiently waits for the signal. Because it's based on light its line of sight (i.e. if someone is standing in the way the remote doesn't work). The only wonderful thing about IR though is its universal support, and so it is the de facto control standard. While no control protocol is perfect, the big problem with IR is that most devices can't send signals, only receive them. This means that while you can buy a programmable remote to control everything in your rack, the Blu-ray player can't send a signal to your TV and tell it to turn on. Technically it's possible, but since every manufacturer uses its own IR codes, even if the Blu-ray player did have an emitter, odds are it wouldn't emit the correct signal. Lets assume for a second, though, that every device did use the same codes. Then you'd still have two more problems. Since IR is line of sight any TV in range would respond, and even worse, if something was blocking the signal it wouldn't work at all.
There have been some devices that emit IR signals to control other devices like the original TiVo, the Slingbox and in the near future the Google TV, so to deal with the line of sight issue, IR blasters are used. A blaster is basically an IR emitter attached via a wire directly to the controlled device. This way you can place the emitter directly in front of the device you're controlling in an attempt to ensure nothing gets in the way. IR blasters work pretty good as long as they stay in place -- especially if you install a shield that blocks stray IR signals -- but still don't overcome IR's one way nature. And of course the controlling device must be programmed to send the appropriate IR signals and timings. It also helps if the device support discrete IR codes for on and off, as reliably controlling a device with only toggle power commands can be almost impossible.
HDMI has really taken off as the new standard in connectivity in the home theater and for good reason -- it isn't perfect though. Instead of requiring a number of cables to carry the various signals between your Blu-ray player and your HDTV, a single cable carries audio, video and other data like control signals. Unfortunately HDMI-CEC isn't nearly as popular as HDMI, and even when it is supported, manufacturers only support it when connected to the same brand hardware. Most even go further and re-brand it like Samsung who calls it Anynet while Panasonic that calls it VIERA Link. In reality most of the basics do work between different manufacturers and since no programming is required, many functions just work. The best example is when you turn on a Blu-ray player, the HDTV would also turn on and switch to the input that the Blu-ray player is connected to. There are also examples of when it doesn't work, and sometimes it is intentional. We've seen a few devices that would probably work together, but disable themselves if they don't detect the expected device on the other end. But even worse, some manufacturers don't seem to support it at all which can at best be annoying, but at worst prevent other devices from communicating -- for example if you have a Blu-ray player connected to an HDTV via a AVR that doesn't support HDMI-CEC, then it doesn't work at all. We've even seen some HDMI cables that won't pass the signals, so yeah, there's lots that can go wrong here.
All the bad things aside, HDMI-CEC does have the most potential of all the control protocols used in the home theater, but until it is widely supported by the industry, it'll never gain significant traction in the home. When it does work it is pretty sweet, especially since it is truly plug and play -- so no programming required.
Oh the interface that'll never die lives on in the our home theaters too. It even uses our old friend the DB-9 connector and is pretty universal. After you get the old 8-N-1 going you'll have to know the codes which can be more difficult to come by since there isn't exactly large databases of codes like there are for IR remotes, and you can't exactly learn the codes either. But when you can get the protocol from the manufacturer you have yourselves some very reliable two-way control. Now of course most devices don't sport RS-232 ports these days and even when they do there's only one. So it isn't like you can daisy chain 'em like HDMI-CEC, which means you need a dedicated device to control everything. This device can be as simple as an old PC loaded with serial ports or as high end as a Crestron controller that retails for more than most cars.
But just because your set-top box doesn't have a DB9 on it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't support RS-232. No, in fact there are some devices like the old ReplayTV that had a mini-jack port that was actually an RS-232 port and another example is the latest DirecTV receivers which support certain USB to RS-232 adapters. Now for something like a Slingbox or a Google TV, RS-232 would work perfectly since the two are close to each other and it is very reliable -- but of course it isn't perfect either as it isn't like a set-top would respond to a request for a list of current VOD offerings.
This isn't exactly one of the first things that pop in your head when you think of control interfaces, but anyone who has transferred video from a HDV camcorder knows that you can control the camcorder from the capture software. Well these same controls and more are available to make recording via 1394 from a set-top box possible. And while we've only seen a few HDTVs with 1394 ports, there are lots and lots of cable set-top boxes with them -- although thanks to a loophole in an FCC mandate, many of the ports don't actually work. We've seen people use the 1394 port to change channels on their cable box from their HTPC. It is more reliable than IR, but not nearly as widely supported.
The most prolific communications protocol in the world is also useful for controlling some home theater gear; and has the best chance of taking over the job of being the de facto standard from IR. More and more devices are internet connected than ever these days and in many cases these same Ethernet ports can be used to control the device. Sadly many of these protocols are not documented at all and only exist to allow the manufacturer's iPhone remote to work. Luckily most of these devices don't require authentication so using a network sniffer to discover the protocol isn't beyond the abilities of any decent networking geek. So far we haven't seen the adoption we need to really make IP the new standard, but there are plenty of AV receivers, and Blu-ray players that can be controlled like this and TiVo's have performed this trick for years. The best part is that most of the IP control protocols we've seen go beyond basic on/off and transport controls and do allow you to query data from the device and other fancy things.
As you can see there are plenty of control options for your home theater gear way beyond IR, but even with some very carefully planning you'll probably end up using more than a few of them at the same time. The only two that have any chance of being used by your mom is HDMI-CEC and IP control with the later being a stretch since it requires all the devices be connected to the same network. We say that because both can auto discover and configure themselves once the proper plumbing is in place. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record if just about every device out there doesn't support the same control interface, then it is all for naught.
Just getting into HD? Check out these other HD 101 features:
HD 101: Overscan and why all TVs do it
What is ATSC, PSIP, QAM, and 8-VSB?
How to use Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD with your PS3
Why there are black bars on HDTVs
Infrared (IR)
This is the king of control protocols in the living room and in fact just about every remote control made in recent history uses it to deliver controls from across a room. It's very basic in that the remote emits light at a wavelength outside our eye's range and the receiving device patiently waits for the signal. Because it's based on light its line of sight (i.e. if someone is standing in the way the remote doesn't work). The only wonderful thing about IR though is its universal support, and so it is the de facto control standard. While no control protocol is perfect, the big problem with IR is that most devices can't send signals, only receive them. This means that while you can buy a programmable remote to control everything in your rack, the Blu-ray player can't send a signal to your TV and tell it to turn on. Technically it's possible, but since every manufacturer uses its own IR codes, even if the Blu-ray player did have an emitter, odds are it wouldn't emit the correct signal. Lets assume for a second, though, that every device did use the same codes. Then you'd still have two more problems. Since IR is line of sight any TV in range would respond, and even worse, if something was blocking the signal it wouldn't work at all.
There have been some devices that emit IR signals to control other devices like the original TiVo, the Slingbox and in the near future the Google TV, so to deal with the line of sight issue, IR blasters are used. A blaster is basically an IR emitter attached via a wire directly to the controlled device. This way you can place the emitter directly in front of the device you're controlling in an attempt to ensure nothing gets in the way. IR blasters work pretty good as long as they stay in place -- especially if you install a shield that blocks stray IR signals -- but still don't overcome IR's one way nature. And of course the controlling device must be programmed to send the appropriate IR signals and timings. It also helps if the device support discrete IR codes for on and off, as reliably controlling a device with only toggle power commands can be almost impossible.

High-Definition Multimedia Interface - Consumer Electronics Control (HDMI-CEC)
HDMI has really taken off as the new standard in connectivity in the home theater and for good reason -- it isn't perfect though. Instead of requiring a number of cables to carry the various signals between your Blu-ray player and your HDTV, a single cable carries audio, video and other data like control signals. Unfortunately HDMI-CEC isn't nearly as popular as HDMI, and even when it is supported, manufacturers only support it when connected to the same brand hardware. Most even go further and re-brand it like Samsung who calls it Anynet while Panasonic that calls it VIERA Link. In reality most of the basics do work between different manufacturers and since no programming is required, many functions just work. The best example is when you turn on a Blu-ray player, the HDTV would also turn on and switch to the input that the Blu-ray player is connected to. There are also examples of when it doesn't work, and sometimes it is intentional. We've seen a few devices that would probably work together, but disable themselves if they don't detect the expected device on the other end. But even worse, some manufacturers don't seem to support it at all which can at best be annoying, but at worst prevent other devices from communicating -- for example if you have a Blu-ray player connected to an HDTV via a AVR that doesn't support HDMI-CEC, then it doesn't work at all. We've even seen some HDMI cables that won't pass the signals, so yeah, there's lots that can go wrong here.
All the bad things aside, HDMI-CEC does have the most potential of all the control protocols used in the home theater, but until it is widely supported by the industry, it'll never gain significant traction in the home. When it does work it is pretty sweet, especially since it is truly plug and play -- so no programming required.
RS-232
Oh the interface that'll never die lives on in the our home theaters too. It even uses our old friend the DB-9 connector and is pretty universal. After you get the old 8-N-1 going you'll have to know the codes which can be more difficult to come by since there isn't exactly large databases of codes like there are for IR remotes, and you can't exactly learn the codes either. But when you can get the protocol from the manufacturer you have yourselves some very reliable two-way control. Now of course most devices don't sport RS-232 ports these days and even when they do there's only one. So it isn't like you can daisy chain 'em like HDMI-CEC, which means you need a dedicated device to control everything. This device can be as simple as an old PC loaded with serial ports or as high end as a Crestron controller that retails for more than most cars.


1394 (aka Firewire)
This isn't exactly one of the first things that pop in your head when you think of control interfaces, but anyone who has transferred video from a HDV camcorder knows that you can control the camcorder from the capture software. Well these same controls and more are available to make recording via 1394 from a set-top box possible. And while we've only seen a few HDTVs with 1394 ports, there are lots and lots of cable set-top boxes with them -- although thanks to a loophole in an FCC mandate, many of the ports don't actually work. We've seen people use the 1394 port to change channels on their cable box from their HTPC. It is more reliable than IR, but not nearly as widely supported.
IP control
The most prolific communications protocol in the world is also useful for controlling some home theater gear; and has the best chance of taking over the job of being the de facto standard from IR. More and more devices are internet connected than ever these days and in many cases these same Ethernet ports can be used to control the device. Sadly many of these protocols are not documented at all and only exist to allow the manufacturer's iPhone remote to work. Luckily most of these devices don't require authentication so using a network sniffer to discover the protocol isn't beyond the abilities of any decent networking geek. So far we haven't seen the adoption we need to really make IP the new standard, but there are plenty of AV receivers, and Blu-ray players that can be controlled like this and TiVo's have performed this trick for years. The best part is that most of the IP control protocols we've seen go beyond basic on/off and transport controls and do allow you to query data from the device and other fancy things.

Lots of options, but no silver bullet
As you can see there are plenty of control options for your home theater gear way beyond IR, but even with some very carefully planning you'll probably end up using more than a few of them at the same time. The only two that have any chance of being used by your mom is HDMI-CEC and IP control with the later being a stretch since it requires all the devices be connected to the same network. We say that because both can auto discover and configure themselves once the proper plumbing is in place. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record if just about every device out there doesn't support the same control interface, then it is all for naught.






















Good, I just dont get why they created hdmi 1.4? doesn't 1.3 do 3d?
@Cainhunpi
Eeeew, that thing looks like a robot worm sticking out, seriously.
@Cainhunpi
Technically HDMI 1.3 can carry 3D, but devices that are HDMI 1.3 certified might not support 3D. So if a device wants to be HDMI 1.4a certified, it has to be 3D aware. In addition to 3D though, HDMI 1.4 also supports ethernet as well as an audio return channel.
@Cainhunpi It adds 100 base-t, ups the bandwidth to allow 4k video, and allows 3D in 1080p. If you have HDMI 1.3, you won't be able to watch 3D in HD because 1.3 doesn't have the required bandwidth. Technically if you're watching it on cable it doesn't matter though, because you'll only be getting 50% of the resolution, meaning a 1080i broadcast will be shown as 540i.
@Cainhunpi Nope it's going to be another HD Ready/Full HD thing. HDMI 1.4 is the first to be able to do 1080p 3D. Anything before is lower resolution or lower frame rate.
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget HDMI 1.3 can easily do 3D and has the same MHZ and bandwidth of 1.4. 1.4 just adds supports for:
Ethernet Channel
Audio Return Channel
4k × 2k Resolution Support
It also officially adds 3D support but 3D runs fine through 1.3 as well.
@ac3boy And that's where you're wrong:
"And you won't get full 1080p 3D via an upgraded HDMI 1.3 box, either — just half or quarter resolution, depending on the source. HDMI 1.3 isn't powerful enough to stream near-simultaneous 1080p frames. From a full 1080p source such as Blu-ray or a satellite receiver, you'll instead get dual 1080i images to create 3D; from a cable box, you'll get dual 540i images. I've been told the difference between full 1080p 3D and 540i 3D is essentially the difference between Blu-ray and DVD, which for most people is not that big of a difference."
http://dvice.com/archives/2009/12/no-new-blu-ray.php
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget
That article is incorrect. The highest quality 3D available today is 1080p24 per eye which actually uses less bandwidth than 1080p60. So HDMI 1.3 has more than enough throughput for 1080p24 Full 3D, but the equipment just doesn't understand the way the data is packed in.
In fact Sony 3D Blu-ray players and the PS3 both have HDMI 1.3 interfaces and work with Blu-ray's full 3D.
@engadgetcomexcludeengadget I was not referring to the source or display. Those of course need to be upgraded to be able to play and decode the 3D stream in full 1080p. I was talking about every piece of the connection does not need to be 1.4. Example: A 1.3 receiver used for HDMI switching between the Blu-Ray and display works just fine as long as you disable any processing of the video signal. Most receivers have an option of passthru mode on the HDMI and the 1.3 spec receiver passes the 1.4 3d signal just fine with full 1080p dual frames.
so...why not just do a DECENT all in one tv?you got your blu ray,you got the ht receiver,you got your box that will work with the cable company,and throw in a hard drive for your dvr.if you're getting it all,why not get it all with good quality products,not crap from emerson or something?
of course...maybe i'm just whistling dixie out my ass.
@spartan1
The problem with an all in one TV like what you described is "What happens to the entire set when one item goes out?" The cost of repairing something like that could easily outweigh the cost of buying a new one, creating a lot more electronic waste that we don't need right now.
Also, a TV that had all of those things in it definitely wouldn't be the beautifully 1/2" slim TVs that everyone lusts over now. You'd have to have a built in amp with 7.1 outputs and 100W per channel. You'd need a cable card / tru2way slot, you'd need the space for a 500GB HDD.... plus the controllers and decoders, plus the LCD, plus a mega large power supply to power it all, and I'm sure a whole list of other things I can't even begin to think of at the moment.
@spartan1 The term "All your eggs in one basket" comes to mind!
Sweet, an article based solely on my profession.
We still prefer to do as much as possible over RS-232, even though it's an older control scheme. The programming for it is much easier than IP, has the needed 2-way communication (metadata, status data, etc.) and is very much proven to not have the same problems as other control mechanisms.
IP control of products is still relatively new (compared to 232) but it does work... most of the time. I know one of my receivers is plagued with a problem with when it's not being used often enough it stops receiving the 'power on' command over IP. IP also gives you nice 2-way feedback with metadata and all that jazz. IP will eventually replace 232, but it's not quite there yet.
IR, oh IR.... As long as you have a component that has discrete commands, IR is fine. It's when you run into a TV that uses toggle power commands and non-discrete video switching that the problems come in. Sony, Samsung, Sharp all use discrete IR codes and I love them for it.
HDMI... Oh, how I hate thee. We don't use HDMI for control at all, and probably won't unless the the world ends and the lawyers demand we do so.
Thanks for doing the write up Ben, it was a good read (even if I do disagree on a few minor points)
@Pacey
I spent several years programming MX-3000 remotes from IR. I hate the stupid TOAD commands and anything non-RS-232. IR is just so janky and has no meta-data.
Just curious, how did you get started as a CI/Control Systems Integrator?
@aedile
Sort of fell into it 4 years. Been doing it ever since. I don't do a lot of the 232/IP programming ( I work with our lead programmer, he programs, I connect it all ), but I do know that 232 is the only control style that we never seem to have problems with.
You guys covered IR but strangely left out one other very practical option. A programmable universal remote control with macros, like the Harmony remotes can be used to tie a system together very nicely. Yes, there is only one way communication, but it still comes very close.
@glennS
Programmable remotes would be its own post. And nothing reliable about a Harmony. If it was it wouldn't need the stupid help menu.
@glennS Beat me to it with the harmony remote they are great.
@glennS
He didn't specifically mention the harmony remote, but he did mention universal remotes in general. The Harmony's have gotten better with their PC programming, but (in my opinion) are no better or worse than any other high end universal remote.
@glennS They didn't leave out harmony. Harmony uses IR, and they are garbage compared to professional options on the market. They have a high failure rate, rely solely on IR, require an active internet connection to program, and lock out features required to access some more advanced control options that are regularly needed.
@cinematech Perhaps suggest some alternatives then. I have always been happy with my harmony remote.
@petebob796
Universal Remote, Model MX-850 or MX-900
@Pacey
The article (unless is has been edited after my post) makes no mention of universal remotes. It says that "IR is universal", which is not the same thing. But enough with the semantics...
@cinematech
To each their own. You get what you pay for, and you get a lot for your money with a harmony remote. I never tried to compare it to a "professional" installer only system. Why did you? Just because a BMW is a nicer car that a Volkswagen, that doesn't mean the VW is crap.
@glennS
Just because I'm a stickler:
"This means that while you can buy a programmable remote to control everything in your rack."
he used programmable in place of universal, but the meaning is implied and since there is an actual company called "Universal Remote" he may have been trying to not confuse people
@petebob796 Gladly: RTI, Pronto, and URC all come to mind.
@glennS You are 100% correct. In comparison to the BMW, the VW is a fair, albeit less expensive comparison. If you were comparing a Yugo to that same BMW it would be a different story. URC makes a much more reliable product than Logitech at a similar price point. The Harmony product trades off capability and reliability for a wizz-bang, flashy appearance and hold-your-hand programming interface.
@cinematech
Maybe you are correct. I have no experience with the URC remotes, so I really can't comment on that. I do have experience with the harmony remotes, and if you are insinuating that they are the 'yugo' in your comparison, then we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. When my 74 year old father in law comes over and goes into my home theater, he can pick up the harmony remote and touch the button next to "watch TV' on the screen, and that is all he has to do besides change the channel. It is brain-dead simple for someone unfamiliar with my gear to use it. Same thing with "watch disc" or "watch HTPC", or "play XBOX" One button and everything is done for them, except physically putting a disc in the blu-ray player. I get it that since Logitech bought the harmony brand it has become a more retail product, and maybe lost favor with the audio/videophile elitists because of that. As a linux user and a software developer, I dislike the windows only hand-holding programming interface. But the fact that my wife, my father-in-law, and my young children can actually use it without my help has won me over. If you can honestly tell me that a URC remote, or some other brand will give my family the same experience and have additional benefits/features, then I'll look into it for my next remote.
@glennS Any of the remotes I mentioned have the same abilities as the harmony when it comes to programming macros. They also add the ability to use the other protocols such as RS-232 and IP control. The major advantage of the other brands is that they able to grow past what Harmony is capable of.
Being a Linux guy myself, I despise having to keep a VM running just to program remotes for customers. If you like the wizard based approach that Harmony takes, URC actually has a remote that runs a wizard on its screen, so you can program it computer free.
Harmony didn't invent the activity based macro, they were just the first to hang on a peg hook at Best Buy. The major disadvantage with Harmony is the inability to grow past what they are capable of out of the box.
I don't want to come off as a hater, I just want people to know their are plenty of options that offer value besides Harmony.
Nice read. How come no mention of Bluetooth? I love turning my Ps3's on using the remote and it's low power.
@Bud92
Yeah BT would've been a decent addition. The problem is that it is really only the PS3 that uses it. Not even Sony TVs use it.
I have reverse engineered the proprietary protocol for controlling FiOS HD STB's over the network. The code is here: http://github.com/oneman/FiosRemote
Nice article. The HDMI-CEC situation really annoys me no end! Why can't they just follow the standards instead of wasting time and money creating proprietary standards that cause endless frustration!!
HDMI-CEC drives me up the wall. I have a Samsung LCD TV and a Samsung Blu-ray player. When I am done watching a movie on Blu-ray and turn off the player, it sends a signal to the TV through HDMI-CEC to turn off the TV. It just assumes that I don't want to switch over and watch something on cable. It's the same the other way around -- if I just want to eject a disc from the player the next morning so I can send the movie back to Netflix, it goes ahead and turns on the TV for me. It is a pretty minor thing, but it can get pretty darn annoying.
@nickdallas100 You should be able to turn it off in either the tv, the bd or both. The tv would probably be easiest. Go to Input->Anynet+->setup. You can then turn CEC completely off or just change it so the tv doesn't automatically turn off when the bd is shut off. At least that's the process on my 2-3 year old Samsung, and I'm guessing the menu hasn't changed too much. I use my PS3 as a bd so I'm not sure the process for changing that, but it shouldn't matter if you do it directly in the tv.
I wish they would have enforced the HDMI CEC as standard. This is why people hate using stuff like this because it's only a half solution so never becomes overly popular.
The best solution for me is a harmony remote. You can define each button on the remote for different devices. So set volume controls to your a/v receiver, channel numbers to your cable/satellite box... Then macros to turn everything on all in one.
I'd just vote for everything to get wifi. Ethernet is just another cable to run and another switch port to use, unless it's also going to stream HD video, but most of these devices don't need that functionality. If a standard came forward that worked over WiFi OR ethernet, then manufacturers could just throw some 802.11a/b/g in there and be done with it! Since the major current gen gaming systems have it built in already, it sounds like a good plan. That or Blue Tooth, but I'd think wifi would be more capable (and g or n could probably stream HQ audio without any issues if done right).
@theJML
By law, WiFi is required to accept any unwanted interference even if it affects the intended operation. Personally, I don't want to have my stereo cranked only to get a blast of static that blows out my speakers. Wired is always more reliable, period.
@Pacey That's what the packet CRC is for. Bad packets are detected and ignored, so you get silent dropouts and not blasts of static. Plus pre-buffering covers all but the worst dropouts.
Still, I ain't gonna argue, wired is the better way.
@theJML Another issue with wifi is battery saving timeouts. Once the remote has been idle for the predetermined time, it drops its connection and has to re-authenticate before it will function. This may only be a second, but it doesn't happen until you have already pressed the macro key. In a situation where a macro event may be a couple of minutes (projector warm-up for example), you have to wait that long to re-execute that command. Other than that, wifi remotes rock.
So the HDMI-CEC portion of this article never actually explains the difference between standard HDMI and HDMI-CEC. i just starts out by explaining HDMI, and goes on to discuss aspects of CEC, skipping right over the "CEC" explanation.
So my question: Is it the same thing, and the "CEC" portion is just usually cut off when discussing the standard, or is HDMI-CEC a specific version of HDMI that allows more functionality?
@Levi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC CEC is part of HDMI it's not always implemented making it less useful as you can't be sure all your hardware will allow it. Unless you research lots before you purchase.
@Levi
HDMI-CEC is the control protocol that runs over HDMI cables. It is part of the spec, but not a requirement and implementors have flexibility to add in their own control signals. But the basic discovery and addressing is standard. It isn't very user configurable and is very device specific, so it will really depend on which hardware you have.
This article was filled with some great information, just wish it would have come out about 2 weeks ago.
Just bought a decent home theater system, new HDTV, HD cable and hooked up the HTPC that I've been building for a while. I have all the content I want, but it takes 3 remotes and keyboard and mouse to control everything. Each remote has some universal options, so I can control volume with one, or change the channel with the other and stuff like that. But if I want to change from movie to game mode on the tv, I need to tv remote, if I want to change from Dolby to DTS I need the receiver remote, want to control the dvr, need the cable remote. Want to watch online content, need the keyboard and mouse. It's just tooooooooo much.
I thought about a logitech harmony, but those are too dang expensive, I don't know if they could even really do everything I need to do.
You know what would be great. A little box I could strap under my coffee table that I could program each function for each device into and control from a touch screen keyboard that could also interface wirelessly with my computer. If it existed, I could not afford it, but I can dream.
Sorry for the rant.
@verruckt8
If you want to dream, check out Control 4. They do exactly what you want, but you will still need the KB and Mouse for the HTPC for any control option out there.
@verruckt8 I would try a harmony remote, you can probably find an older model one on Ebay cheaper and always re-sell if you don't like it. Colour LCD isn't really necessary and the b&w ones are cheaper.
Take your time thinking what you need the buttons to do and make use of the lcd section for less commonly needed buttons on the remote.
As for the mouse and keyboard, if you are using media centre or similar there are plugins to add online content such as youtube, iPlayer and hulu direct into the menus, then you have an ir receiver on your htpc.
Sure it exists.
http://www.globalcache.com/products/gc-100/
That's why Americans a so fat. Get up and walk over to your TV and turn it on lazy!!
@kevon27
Yeah, 'cuz that 4 foot walk to the TV and back is going to really help people loose 100lbs.
What about people who have distributed Audio/Video systems, should they walk down to their rack and turn everything on, then walk back and forth to change channels and volume?
@Pacey Back in the 80's my TV had no remote and had a analog tuner which you have to manually turn (use muscles) to change the channels, change the volume and to turn the TV off and on.