harmony remotes

[Eddie G]

I got the 659 (since I had a gift card for Circuit City) and after looking
at the different Harmony remotes, why would anyone pay $250 for the 880 just
because of the screen and charging station. Do the cheaper Harmony remotes
not function the same? Does the "watch a movie" feature differ from the
cheapest Harmony and the 880? I would not think so, so why such a huge
price difference?

Eddie G

[Pete]

"Eddie G" wrote
> Do the cheaper Harmony remotes not function the same? Does the "watch
> a movie" feature differ from the cheapest Harmony and the 880? I
> would not think so, so why such a huge price difference?

I don't know about the more expensive ones, but the buttons on the 520
kind of suck. There are 5 different types of buttons, and each type
behaves differently - has a different touch/feel to it and requires
different amount of force to be operated. It actually hurts to press
some of them. It's the best looking Harmony remote (IMO), but after 2
weeks of using it, honestly I'm not all that thrilled with it.

[Spam Catcher]

"Eddie G" <mickeddie@(removeme)comcast.net> wrote in
news:e_OdnYRNJ_aMuF7eRVn-gA@comcast.com:

> I got the 659 (since I had a gift card for Circuit City) and after
> looking at the different Harmony remotes, why would anyone pay $250
> for the 880 just because of the screen and charging station. Do the
> cheaper Harmony remotes not function the same? Does the "watch a
> movie" feature differ from the cheapest Harmony and the 880? I would
> not think so, so why such a huge price difference?
>

I have the 680 and 880. The 880 has a much better screen, better key
layout, and automatic back light glow once the remote is picked up (great
feature).

The 880 is an excellent remote except for 2 points:

-Placement of number keys makes it hard for 1 handed use.
-IR range is weak in comparison to the 680.

If the 880 had better IR, it would be an excellent remote.

So to summarize, the main difference is the screen (how many
characters/items it can fit per screen), and minor features such as tilt
sensors, key layouts etc.

--
Stan Kee (spamhoneypot@rogers.com)

[Large Farva]

"Eddie G" <mickeddie@(removeme)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e_OdnYRNJ_aMuF7eRVn-gA@comcast.com...
>I got the 659 (since I had a gift card for Circuit City) and after looking
>at the different Harmony remotes, why would anyone pay $250 for the 880
>just because of the screen and charging station. Do the cheaper Harmony
>remotes not function the same? Does the "watch a movie" feature differ
>from the cheapest Harmony and the 880? I would not think so, so why such a
>huge price difference?

Coolness factor. The 880 is cool as hell. The LCD screen rules, and you can
put custom graphics on it for each button. People walk in and see a 659 on
the table and they think it's a $20 All-In-One...but that 880...they know
it's the cat's ass.

So that, plus mainly I think the 880 has the best button layout. Plus it's
got 8 customizeable buttons at the top where the others have 6 (this was a
huge deal for me). Plus it lights up when you pick it up! And the recharging
cradle...never needs batteries.

I actually got a 659 for my parents for Christmas and they love it. All they
have is DirectTV and a DVD player but I played with the 659 for a while
setting it up and all that. It definitely feels cheaper than the 880. The
LCD screen is kinda useless, and the way it handles favorite channels is
useless. But for them, none of that matters. The 659 is perfect for them.
Me, I need the 880! The custom LCD mapping and auto glow is worth the extra
for me. Plus the 880 is only $175 if you do some shopping.

[Fyrman]

I've got a 659 right now as well and am quite happy with it other than
two things..

1. It's hard on batteries! I just spoke to techsupport and they
recommended upgrading to the latest firmware... sounds like bandaid
solution answer to me but, we'll see.

2. I run X-10 to control the lighting in my theater and the 659 won't
control the rf equipment. It just means I have to keep a second remote
on the table for the lights... no biggie.

Otherwise, it's a great remote. I'm controlling a JVC reciever and dvd
player, a Motorola HD Cable box, and an Infocus 4805 projector with it
and it works great. Macros are a breeze to set up and work really well.
All in all a nice little remote to start with. The whole sytem will be
upgraded as money permits and I'm sure the remote will be one dayy as
well but in the meantime I'm quite happy with it.

[L Alpert]

Eddie G wrote:
> I got the 659 (since I had a gift card for Circuit City) and after
> looking at the different Harmony remotes, why would anyone pay $250
> for the 880 just because of the screen and charging station. Do the
> cheaper Harmony remotes not function the same? Does the "watch a
> movie" feature differ from the cheapest Harmony and the 880? I would
> not think so, so why such a huge price difference?
>
> Eddie G

The 880 gives you multiple screens for controlling the individual devices,
and one can have even the most arcane stuff loaded in if you want it. My
receiver has about 80 commands loaded when I want to control it
specifically.

The rechargeable battery and backlighting is nice as well.

Cons...some of the button layouts aren't very ergonomic.....

Can be had on eBay for much less.......

[L Alpert]

Spam Catcher wrote:
> "Eddie G" <mickeddie@(removeme)comcast.net> wrote in
> news:e_OdnYRNJ_aMuF7eRVn-gA@comcast.com:
>
>> I got the 659 (since I had a gift card for Circuit City) and after
>> looking at the different Harmony remotes, why would anyone pay $250
>> for the 880 just because of the screen and charging station. Do the
>> cheaper Harmony remotes not function the same? Does the "watch a
>> movie" feature differ from the cheapest Harmony and the 880? I would
>> not think so, so why such a huge price difference?
>>
>
> I have the 680 and 880. The 880 has a much better screen, better key
> layout, and automatic back light glow once the remote is picked up
> (great feature).
>
> The 880 is an excellent remote except for 2 points:
>
> -Placement of number keys makes it hard for 1 handed use.
> -IR range is weak in comparison to the 680.
>
> If the 880 had better IR, it would be an excellent remote.
>
> So to summarize, the main difference is the screen (how many
> characters/items it can fit per screen), and minor features such as
> tilt sensors, key layouts etc.

How far away are you from your devices? I don't seem to have any issues
with range......

[Pete]

"L Alpert" wrote
> The 880 gives you multiple screens for controlling the individual devices,

So does the 520.

Pete

[L Alpert]

Pete wrote:
> "L Alpert" wrote
>> The 880 gives you multiple screens for controlling the individual
>> devices,
>
> So does the 520.
>
> Pete

Never used that one. I have a 768 (original Harmony) and the 880.

[Spam Catcher]

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com> wrote in news:a5-dnfq1WfhI9VnenZ2dnUVZ_s-
dnZ2d@comcast.com:

> How far away are you from your devices? I don't seem to have any issues
> with range......

10 feet? Not even... I noticed the 880 has much weaker IR.

I did a quick google search on the issue, and it seems the 880 only has 2
IR emitters, and this maybe a reason why it is weaker.


--
Stan Kee (spamhoneypot@rogers.com)

[Large Farva]

"Spam Catcher" <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974911EE69811usenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0. 1...
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com> wrote in news:a5-dnfq1WfhI9VnenZ2dnUVZ_s-
> dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> How far away are you from your devices? I don't seem to have any issues
>> with range......
>
> 10 feet? Not even... I noticed the 880 has much weaker IR.
>
> I did a quick google search on the issue, and it seems the 880 only has 2
> IR emitters, and this maybe a reason why it is weaker.

You probably have some interference or something, my 880 works at over 30
feet and and various angles.

[Spam Catcher]

"Large Farva" <none@nospam.com> wrote in
news:YNuxf.8467$M%4.1605@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:

>> I did a quick google search on the issue, and it seems the 880 only
>> has 2 IR emitters, and this maybe a reason why it is weaker.
>
> You probably have some interference or something, my 880 works at over
> 30 feet and and various angles.
>

Interference? It's IR. Well my remote works fine - just that the range is
noticable shorter than the 688. And sometimes the commands don't get sent
properly.

With the 880, I have to aim it directly at my equipment, with the 688 I
could be pointing it at pratically any angle! : )
--
Stan Kee (spamhoneypot@rogers.com)

[Klay Anderson]

In article <Xns974973601A3C1usenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0.1>,
Spam Catcher <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote:

> > You probably have some interference or something, my 880 works at over
> > 30 feet and and various angles.
> >
>
> Interference? It's IR. Well my remote works fine - just that the range is
> noticable shorter than the 688. And sometimes the commands don't get sent
> properly.

Yes, interference. Flourescent lamps, "PL ("energy saving") bulbs and large
sunlit windows all generate tons of IR garbage. Also, plasma TV's emit tons of
IR. All can interfere (read: wipe out or override) with the IR's output. Also,
make real sure you have fresh batteries in the remote.

--
Regards,

Klay Anderson
http://www.klay.com
+801-942-8346

[L Alpert]

Spam Catcher wrote:
> "L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com> wrote in
> news:a5-dnfq1WfhI9VnenZ2dnUVZ_s- dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>> How far away are you from your devices? I don't seem to have any
>> issues with range......
>
> 10 feet? Not even... I noticed the 880 has much weaker IR.
>
> I did a quick google search on the issue, and it seems the 880 only
> has 2 IR emitters, and this maybe a reason why it is weaker.

I'm about 15 feet away, and my AVR and DVD are about 6 feet to the right of
the center of the TV/Cable box, and I have no issues with it. Maybe your
unit is faulty?

[L Alpert]

Spam Catcher wrote:
> "Large Farva" <none@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:YNuxf.8467$M%4.1605@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net:
>
>>> I did a quick google search on the issue, and it seems the 880 only
>>> has 2 IR emitters, and this maybe a reason why it is weaker.
>>
>> You probably have some interference or something, my 880 works at
>> over 30 feet and and various angles.
>>
>
> Interference? It's IR. Well my remote works fine - just that the
> range is noticable shorter than the 688. And sometimes the commands
> don't get sent properly.
>
> With the 880, I have to aim it directly at my equipment, with the 688
> I could be pointing it at pratically any angle! : )

??? I can bounce mine off the ceiling to change channels.....My cable box is
low, on the bottom of the TV stand. When "relaxing", this is the method I
always use. It's not too picky either on where I aim it, as long as it
isn't at the ceiling fan.....

[L Alpert]

Klay Anderson wrote:
> In article <Xns974973601A3C1usenethoneypotrogers@127.0.0.1>,
> Spam Catcher <spamhoneypot@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>> You probably have some interference or something, my 880 works at
>>> over 30 feet and and various angles.
>>>
>>
>> Interference? It's IR. Well my remote works fine - just that the
>> range is noticable shorter than the 688. And sometimes the commands
>> don't get sent properly.
>
> Yes, interference. Flourescent lamps, "PL ("energy saving") bulbs
> and large sunlit windows all generate tons of IR garbage. Also,
> plasma TV's emit tons of IR. All can interfere (read: wipe out or
> override) with the IR's output. Also, make real sure you have fresh
> batteries in the remote.

880 has a recharging base. Quite easy to have a full battery (unless it is
faulty)....

I believe it is the same as a portable phone battery. Maybe it would help
to change it out.