Remote Control

[Paul2]

what type of remote control would you prefer for any usage, such as TV, DVD player, VCR, etc...

[Cerberus]

I\'ve only ever known infrared.

just get an rf, with all the competition they\'ve come down in price

who cares...

they both change the volume/channel... right?

[Kurt Angle]

never heard of a radio frequency remote.

[Jumpman]

rf? you mofo\'s too lazy to point the thing?

RF would be cool by me. Wouldn\'t really be a problem with interference given how little it gets used?

I\'d hate to see people in apartments or with multiple tvs etc, changing channels on other people\'s sets, heh..

-Dan

my component rack is not near the TV.  Especially for people who leave them in closets, rf is the only way to go

[Titan]

Um....who cares? As long as I get the channel I want and the volume I want, I really could care less how it works.

[videoholic]

I have a receiver in my living room that I also view in my bedroom.

I use RF.

[Paul2]

Originally posted by THX
just get an rf, with all the competition they\'ve come down in price

Sometimes i wonder if THX is being sarcastic there or not...I doubt neither RF or IR are expensive at all.

I asked the question because I didn\'t understand why is RF easier to shoot, even at bad aim than IR.  With IR, I find that you have to aim directly at the sensor.  Otherwise, the sensor won\'t receive the signal.

After googling, I find out why is that.  RF can travel through wall and can bounce off wall too.  You can turn on the TV by just aiming at the wall opposite of the TV.

I guess the reason why IR is invented is so that we won\'t accidently turn on other equipments since it doesn\'t bounce and require more accurate aim...(but this is unlikely to happen either since you need two specific brand and specific electronics for that to happens too, like two TV with the same brands name sitting opposite side of each other where with RF remote control, you will be turning on both TV by just aiming at one tv becaue RF bounce...)

again, depending on the situation, i prefer RF more than IR since ti doesn\'t require the accurate aim...

Originally posted by Paul2
Sometimes i wonder if THX is being sarcastic there or not...I doubt neither RF or IR are expensive at all.

the one i have is just a basic rf model but it costs $150.  at first i was like no way in hell i\'m spending that much for a remote, but i eventually got sick of pointing everywhere.

i\'m half american, it\'s in my blood to be lazy

[Paul2]

i noticed that for the most part, TV are usually bundled with a RF type remote control, while stand alone DVD players are bundled with an IR remote control...

What that means are that using either RF (radio frequency) or IR (infrared red) doesn\'t cost much to implement.

If anything, I think IF is a bit more expensive than RF because its a bit newer...

Added:  I would like to take one thing back is that I just test an RF remote control and it doesn\'t travel through wall, it does bounce off the wall parallelogram, but doesn\'t travel through wall, so RF for the win.  But still, either technology are cheap to implement...

[Viper_Fujax]

infrared sounds cooler.

and its the only thing iv known

Originally posted by Viper_Fujax
infrared sounds cooler.

and its the only thing iv known

For comparison, things like the Gamecube\'s Wavebird and the wireless Xbox 360 controllers are RF.

Those old school wireless NES controllers were infrared, and they were more restrictive than a corded controller.

-Dan