Except for the Samsung in my bedroom. The other two Samsungs in my house do. Even the one in the kitchen which is much smaller than the one in the bedroom. I've tried all forty or so Samsung discrete codes without luck. Tried powering it on which input commands etc. I'm ready to get out the incense, candles and holy water.

The complete lack of model numbers in this post guarantees that very little progress can be made here.

"I have a problem with my TV."
"Oh, okay. What TV is it?"
"It's the one in my bedroom."

How can this conversation move forward?

Just stating the TV size will help pin things down. If that bedroom TV is a 19," I'd easily believe it had zero discretes, so the problem would be choice of the wrong model. If that bedroom TV is a 65," then there's a HUGE problem with that particular brand and that year's catalog of models.

If those don't work, I usually try using sticks, beads, dancing and chanting.

OK, but is there really a good reason for them to avoid using discretes on all models? I don't believe it costs so much that they won't use a different IR controller when a 55" can be bought for $199 at retail. Charge the extra freaking dollar!

I understand your point. However, the "paperwork" (quick start document and pathetic user manual) doesn't give any model numbers at all. It's just a generic brochure. The only way for me to get the model number would be to remove the TV from the wall mount. My guess is that the only work-around will be to install a power sensing module but since it's my house I will just put up with a separate "power" button for the TV and leave it out of any macros.

My beef is why do these products have dozens of different IR codes and why don't they all include things like discrete "on", "off", and direct input (which would turn the device on)?

Even the cheapest TV on the market could have full discretes rivalling the best ever created. The company just has to a) want it, and b) pay someone to implement it. After it's done for the first set, it could likely be copy-pasted in future sets' programming with little effort.

Remember maybe 10-15 years ago when Yamaha decided full IR codes were important, and literally put every single code they could think of into their receivers? I remember laughing at CEDIA when the product manager was showing me the list, and we were trying to figure out what the use case was for the code that meant "ignore the next command given" (seriously).

For how many decades did people and installers complain that Scientific Atlanta (Cisco) cable boxes have no discrete codes... and yet, were they ever implemented? Nope. Some firmware versions have something of a pseudo-on code, but they cared so little that even that simple request was never implemented.

And then, I have a 1986 Sony 13" TV somewhere in the basement that supports modern-day discrete power on and off, plus discrete inputs for tuner and video 1. And that was back when programming that type of stuff was a serious hassle with extremely limited memory/capabilities!

Sony does have an internal company policy that their products, at least the ones directly engineered, are supposed to follow certain corporate design guidelines, which includes discrete codes. But, sometimes the bottom end models are sourced by other companies and just designed to look like a Sony, but internally have nothing to do with Sony, and those tend to be the ones that miss such functionality.

So, anything can be done. And with today's technology, it can be done cheaply and easily. The problem is most companies just don't care enough to do it.

A slightly different point of view on this is that we, our industry, this giant of capitalism, are just too small for them to seriously pay attention to us.

You can usually find the model number on the Support or Help page, which is usually at the bottom of the main TV control menu. This is not the full model string as printed on the rear of the set or its packing, but it is specific enough to guess the rest.

The CI channel's revenue is estimated to be between roughly $6B and $12B, annually. Do you really think CI couldn't get their attention if it wanted to (are you listening, CEDIA????????????????????????)?

I'm not sure anyone has told the manufacturers and cable providers that we want discrete commands in a way that gets through their thick heads. It's time.

This reminds me of the average media sciencey report that says so and so has caused a threefold increase in the incidence of such and such condition. They omit that the occurrence has increased from one in ten billion to three in ten billion.

It's impossible to tell how sizable a number like $12 billion is when you don't cite what percentage of the pie it is. I mean, that would sure line my pockets, but as Everett Dirksen once said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

Then, there are those who would say that the first number (one billion) is three times less than the other.

You could look into it just as easily as I did before finding the $12 Billion number in the time needed to post your reply.

As I have said before- do a google search for what you want and enter the words you would use when asking someone, orally. Be as specific as needed in order to find the results you want.

What seems to be lacking or inconsistent in new Sony and Samsung models is the availability of discrete aspect ratio commands.

Oh, you've done it now.

Sigh. Those people, in fact by far most of us, would be stating an impossibility in saying that. Bet you never thought about it.

Here we go. I'll try to make this short.

One quantity of real things (i.e. not just numbers, but things) cannot be more than one time less than another quantity of real things. Three times less is impossible.

If you have a hundred of something, that is one times what you have. That's so obvious as to sound silly, but it has implications that we ignore every day.

If you then give away what you have, you have given away one times what you had. You then have zero and you can't give away any more because our universe does not have any negative physical things.

Going back to the initial statement: "The first number is three times less than the other."

No, that's not possible. You're not referring just to mental concepts, numbers, you're referring to billions of dollars. A quantity of dollars can only be three times less than another quantity if negative dollars -- actual bills you can touch -- are possible. Even if this were possible, it's not what you mean to say.

You mean to say "The first number is one third the other."

But hey, just about everybody talks that way.

Next time I'll explain what's wrong with YMMV.

“Anybody have discrete input or power for a Konka x11?” Near future request... [Link: apple.news]

If I mentioned it in the way I did, how/why would you infer that I had never thought about it? It's a stupid way to say "this is 1/x of the other" but since Americans are more concerned with getting more, it sounds better to the morons who don't understand why it's incorrect. They're marketing to stupid people. The same people think that something priced at $299.99 is less than $300. Technically, it's virtually the same (close enough for Rock N Roll).

Why do you think this is what I say? I clearly wrote "There are those who would say....".