I've gotta decide now whether to use an MX-800 and utilize the RF or use a dinky link type target (plasma proof of course) to control a stack in a closet 25 feet away.

One installer said he has had to replace every RF receiver with a -250 unit, but others have given this remote high marks.

Other option is the RTI Theater Master w/RF but completely different budget.

Thanks for the input!

We have had to abandon the MRF-200 and add Niles IR repeater systems on every MX-800. In all fairness, they have all been version 1.0 or 2.0. I talked to the tech at universal and he is going to let me send all of my MRFs back in exchange for version 3.0s (which is the same as the MRF 250).

I will let you know how those work.

At this time, I will wire for and bring an IR repeater system as a backup on all MX-800 jobs.

I've had two installations where I couldn't use the RF (of any remote not just the 800) because of too much interference. One was right below Various TV/ Radio towers and the other was an intermittent problem we couldn't isolate. But, most installations go fine with them.

Bob

I have had problems with the Motorola HD cable receiver that is supplied from Comcast Cable in No. California interfering with th MRF-200.
I ended up going to a Xantech IR Repeater and the MX-700 after spending days pulling my hair out.

Apparently I have had better luck with them than others. We have ran in to problems with cable boxes and sat recv. interfering. MRF-250 works great. Also removing antenna from remote receiver helps.

I've had a few problems with the MX-800's particularly when used in houses with Lutron dimmers. I've found that there's a fair amount of tricks and tips involved with debugging these remotes, but nine out of ten times, I can get them working well.

My major beef isn't so much with the MX-800s, but with RF anything. It's just impossible to predict.

My advice is that if the walls are open to go ahead and pull wires for an IR backup. Confucious say "never really on RF to work 100% of time"

I would like to understand this, and I don't see, on the surface, what comes out of a satellite receiver or cable box that would interfere with an RF device. Do you know what it is, or have you just found by experimentation that keeping them far apart makes the RF receiver work more often?


This one I really don't get. Sorry, but I have not used this unit, and am looking into it, so I do not know how the antenna part of it is done; it just seems like removing the antenna from the receiver would make it into a doorstop. With an LED, probably.

They made the RF receiver WAY to sensitive. When using it with the antenna from close range, the remote seems to overpower and jam the receiver. The RF receiver can still pick up RF transmitions very easily without the antenna. This does help alot.

Maybe if you were using it at a great distance the antenna would be needed.

The antenna was a real problem on my first couple remotes. I couldn't get the remote to work in the room i was in but it worked from across te house. I really like these remotes, now i just need to get one to control an HD Tivo.

i have had to remove the antenna too. I had a job where the plasma that was 8 feet from the mrf200. With the set off - 100% perfect - set on - missed codes. I took the antenna off to reduce sensitivity and VIOLA now works 100% of the time.

We have stopped using all together,

Tom, Hold off a few months before you buy. They have a new base unit in the works. It has a separate antenna like RTI so you can move it around in the cabinet.

We used a prototype of it in a house where the MX-800 was unreliable no matter what we did. The customer was so upset he asked us to take back $17,000 worth of equipment and refund the labor.

The new unit (Model MRF-250RFS) has an RF sensivitity trim pot. I was able to find a setting where I could actually lay the antenna directly on top of a HD satellite box and it still worked flawlessly with far more range than we needed for the job.

Last I heard, the new base unit will be available in about 2 months.

We stopped using Universal MX remotes all together , the RF base stations simply dont work, they are crap , it would be a crime to give them away with cereal boxes
muchless be charging for them , I highly suggest the RTI remote controls if you need
RF.

I gave Universal one last chance with the mx3000 remote and once again the RF
base station did not work half of my components , and I did the usual take the antenna off , tape the IR emitters , and half of a dozen other tricks but it did not
work.

Maybe Universal should get some RF training from RTI for it's Tech's..

I have been watching this thread with great interest. I have yet to use an RF remote outside of Crestron that was reliable enough to make me happy. Sorry to hear that the MX-800 is not reaping accolades.

I've been burned pretty good by the original RTI; it set a company record for returned remote controls. I think I now have more sitting around here than I have installed in the field. I think I'm going to talk to them at the show and see if a deal can be worked out for their new stuff.....

Hadn't planned on adding to this post, but the last two posts above this one probably called for a little more input.

I am not at all a fan of the MX-800. The original base units were definitely poorly designed. Tech support was basically, "A good installer can make it work so you must not know what you are doing." No... they didn't say that directly...... but it was implied by the comments.

Universal Remotes cost us a ton of service calls with their product.

We started using it for one reason only. Too many problems with screen failures on the RTI units. The T2 system is far superior in my opinion.

That said, the new MX-800 base unit I mentioned above ( a prototype we got from Univ. Remotes) was installed in a house that had given us tremendous trouble, and a very dissatisfied customer. Naturally, it was also an out of town installation. Profit we made from the system was heavily eaten into by the defects in the MX-800 system.

Even with the antenna removed, the system was very intermittent no matter where we located the base unit. Yet, we could take the remote out in the yard and work the equipment reliably, from outdoors.... even into some woods over 200 feet away. The remote was simply overloading the base unit. U.R., like another manufacturer I can think of, blamed it on interference in the house. They were correct, but the interference was only present when their own remote was in the house. As long as their remote was outside, everything worked just fine.

The FCC regs clearly tell companies that build products like this that they must accept harmful interference from other sources, even if that interference causes them to fail. What that means is, it is up to the system designer to build a product that will operate in a hostile environment. It should not be up to the installer spending half a day moving a base unit and re-routing flashers all over a cabinet.

The prototype base unit I mentioned in my previous post comes with a detachable antenna module. It is actually a small black box with a power LED, an RF activity LED and a sensitivity adjustment pot.

When I first set it up, the activity light was constantly on even with the antenna module some 8 feet outside of the cabinet. I held the module next to the HD satellite box and turn down the sensitivity control until the LED went dark, then placed the module on a top shelf well away from the equipment. It worked well. Out of curosity, I placed the module directly on top of the satellite box. It still worked properly.

This was for a very unhappy customer who was at the stage of asking for a complete refund on the entire system. So, after permanently mounting the module, I spent the next 30 minutes doing nothing but pressing every button on the remote. Not one time did it miss a command, and it still had plenty of range.

It is not my favorite remote by any means, but I have to give credit where it is due. They seem to have found an answer to their problems with the new base unit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now the other reason for adding to my post. We still have a great many RTI remotes in customers homes. Yes, we went through the period of all the screen failures, but that was some time back. We have not had a service call related to an RTI in over 6 months now.

If I were choosing between a T2 or an MX-800 for my personal use, it would be the T2 hands down. It is simply a superior remote in my opinion. However, from what I saw with the prototype base unit, I would not be afraid to go with an 800 with the new base once it is released if that were my preference.