Remote controls suck ass these days

[Zebo]

What's up with new remotes in that you have to point them directly at unit to make changes? I remember back in the 80's I had a TV I could switch channels in pointing remote backwards, towards ceiling even be in another room and still switch channels. Has anyone else experienced this phenomena of weak ass remote controls?

 

[Freshgeardude]

remote controls work the same from the 80s till now.

I can, for instance point it backwards in a room with a reflective wallpaper and it will work, at an angle, but wont work when its hit off of curtains.

unless you live in the same room you did from the 80s, this is probably why

 

[Locut0s]

Perhaps it has something to do with new standards that insist on products not interfering with one another? Can't remember which organization oversees this kind of thing, the FCC?, but most devises nowadays have to conform to these standards, no product is supposed to interfere with the operation of another. There is also the issue of power drain, if the infrared LED in the remote is bright enough that the censor in the parent devise can pick it up no matter which way the remote is pointing then it's probably going to eat through the batteries a lot faster. However I don't notice this to be much of an issue with fresh batteries in the remotes.

 

[ahenkel]

hmm I can change channels from another room with my remote. Granted its Dish Network and has a UHF radio antenna.

 

[mugs]

It seems to depend on the device/remote, same as in the 80s and 90s. I had my Comcast digital converter box behind my TV and was able to change the channel by pointing the remote at the wall. But the remote for that TV had to have a direct line of sight to the IR receiver on the TV or it wouldn't work. Both were IR remotes, not RF. I figure some remotes just output a more powerful signal that is more easily detected when it's reflected.

 

[Zebo]

This is a brand new remote brand new batteries brand new Sony TV. And it's not the only item I have issues with. Everything needs to be pointed directly at.

No way are they the same as past and I've been noticing Remote impotence getting worse over the years too but now it's like unless you point it directly at little black receiver square on unit nothing happens.

 

[Locut0s]

This is a brand new remote brand new batteries brand new Sony TV. And it's not the only item I have issues with. Everything needs to be pointed directly at.

No way are they the same as past and I've been noticing Remote impotence getting worse over the years too but now it's like unless you point it directly at little black receiver square on unit nothing happens.

Then it's obvious, you are living inside a class 12 dampening field.

 

[Zebo]

It seems to depend on the device/remote, same as in the 80s and 90s. I had my Comcast digital converter box behind my TV and was able to change the channel by pointing the remote at the wall. But the remote for that TV had to have a direct line of sight to the IR receiver on the TV or it wouldn't work. Both were IR remotes, not RF. I figure some remotes just output a more powerful signal that is more easily detected when it's reflected.

Hmmm maybe RF remotes were why they were better...

 

[l0cke]

You obviously need a laser sight for your remotes.

 

[Zebo]

You obviously need a laser sight for your remotes.

And have my dogs eat TV. On the other hand maybe I can get them to switch channels pointing at just the right spot and toss remote entirely.

 

[CRXican]

I can point my TV remote all around the room and it works

 

[Rubycon]

You can get a central remote with repeater function. This requires sources to be mounted over the IR receiver(s) on your TV, DVD, etc. One remote will control them all. The handheld IS RF so no problems with pointing. It's particularly useful if you have multiple TVs that are the same brand/model and you'd like independent control over them.

 

[Zebo]

You can get a central remote with repeater function. This requires sources to be mounted over the IR receiver(s) on your TV, DVD, etc. One remote will control them all. The handheld IS RF so no problems with pointing. It's particularly useful if you have multiple TVs that are the same brand/model and you'd like independent control over them.

Thank you Ruby! One remote to rule them all would be a definite bonus too. Do you happen to have a link for such a device?

 

[rise]

i think it's more the receivers. i can point my harmony pretty much anywhere and it will work my tv or monitor but i have to point it right at the fios box.

 

[Gibson486]

Perhaps it has something to do with new standards that insist on products not interfering with one another? Can't remember which organization oversees this kind of thing, the FCC?, but most devises nowadays have to conform to these standards, no product is supposed to interfere with the operation of another. There is also the issue of power drain, if the infrared LED in the remote is bright enough that the censor in the parent devise can pick it up no matter which way the remote is pointing then it's probably going to eat through the batteries a lot faster. However I don't notice this to be much of an issue with fresh batteries in the remotes.

those standards are not new at all....regulating EMI for EMC has been around for a while...and it really only deals with EMI.

 

[Rubycon]

Thank you Ruby! One remote to rule them all would be a definite bonus too. Do you happen to have a link for such a device?

You can have something as simple as an IR repeater which takes the IR from your remote and routes it to your device (good for receivers behind wooden doors, for example).

Or a full blown multimedia command center that looks like a tablet PC that controls everything! Folks with smart homes have these and carry them around and can alter lighting, unlock doors/windows, activate shades, turn on music in any place in the house. I was shown one such system in a 35,000 ft² residence a few years ago and could not believe the effort that was put into this system! It was tied in with the phone system, security, CCTV, etc. If there was a real life Tony Stark, this guy was him!

Have you seen remotecentral.com? That's probably a good place to start.

 

[Modelworks]

It has a lot to do with how they design the output stage of the remote. There are a bunch of ways to do it from very cheaply to costly. The easiest way is just to send the signal to an IR LED connected directly to the microprocessor in the remote. The problem is that has poor range, about 7 feet at best. The next method is to connect the LED through a single transistor and use that to drive the LED at higher currents. And the last way which has extremely long range, 30 feet or more is to drive the LED with a darlington pair and a high current LED matched for the circuit. It isn't as easy to design because that combination can put between 1 to 2 amps on the LED and if not done correctly the LED will burn out . Most LED in that range for IR can only take that current for very brief times, less than .5 seconds , but that is usually enough time to send the command.

It is also fairly easy to convert any IR remote to RF and get ranges of 50ft or more.
All it takes is a connecting the output in the remote to a transmitter:
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8946 $4
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8950 $6

And add a darlington setup like above at the receiver for the devices.