URC VS. Others
- Thread starter heeman
- Start date
I use two URC systems. One in the HT and another in the living room, both use RF. The URC system has some vey powerful software that lets you do almost anything you can imagine. The drawback is that the software is designed for professional programmers with experience. It's only a DIY proposition if your willing to put in a lot of time learning the tricks on how to get the most out of the system.
I've owned Harmony systems as well and they are a lot easier for the do it yourselfer, there are some limits to how the macros and other programs work compared to the URC stuff, especially when it comes to addressable RF systems.
I've owned Harmony systems as well and they are a lot easier for the do it yourselfer, there are some limits to how the macros and other programs work compared to the URC stuff, especially when it comes to addressable RF systems.
Very durable - I have some URC-200's (older model) I've been using for years - no problems whatsoever. Easy to customize button functions. Extensive macro capability. Good button layout, good button feel. Highly recommended.
The only drawback (to some people) is the lack of computer programming. Hasn't been an issue for me.
The only drawback (to some people) is the lack of computer programming. Hasn't been an issue for me.
I sincerely hope that you are right but there has to be a way to unify all the devices. Nobody is interested in having to open the Samsung app to turn on the tv, then open the Pioneer app to turn on the receiver, then open the LG app to turn on the blueray player, then back to the pioneer app to select the source, etc...
During the movie nobody wants to pick up the tablet, close whatever app they have open to find then open yet another another app just to turn down the volume.
During the movie nobody wants to pick up the tablet, close whatever app they have open to find then open yet another another app just to turn down the volume.
yromj
Well-Known Member
PRO- On the higher end URCs (MX-980 e.g.) the programming possibilities are unlimited. I have a single URC remote that Jan can control 3 systems (HT, LR, MBR) w/ very well. In the living room/bedroom system(s) they share the A/V receiver, satellite box, and blu-ray player. I am able to have volume control for the a/v receiver in the LR and the TV in the bedroom seamlessly. Also, I have Dish receivers and Sony blu-ray players in 2 rooms on 2 RF base stations but I am able to address them completely independently so that when I change channels in one system, the other is not affected (the RF range of the URC equipment would allow me to easily control the devices from either location). URC's RF system also allows individual port addressing which I prefer because it eliminates cross-talk among devices (and also enhances initial setup troubleshooting).
CON- When you have that kind of power, you inherently have complexity in the programming. However, we can address that.
bscene-drinkingcheers: Go URC, you'll thank me later.
John
CON- When you have that kind of power, you inherently have complexity in the programming. However, we can address that.
bscene-drinkingcheers: Go URC, you'll thank me later.John
yromj
Well-Known Member
Oh, on the IP front. I do agree that IP will be the preferred method of control in the not-to-distant future. However, in addition to Tom's point, which is HUGE right now, there is another issue. That issue is that some people are going to still want tactile buttons to control devices with. I am one of those people. I love using my tablet to control Pandora, Sirius, or for browsing my server but when I'm watching a movie and want to pause, I love knowing exactly where the pause button is (and that it's ready to use) the instant I pick up the remote.
John
John
