This may be totally irelevant, but the supplier of my Pronto (T.B.Delivered tomorrow God willing) has this statement posted on their Web-site selling our little baby & please forgive me if this repeats the above - 40+ replies is a lot to read !!

(Quoted from www.letsautomate.com)

"IMPORTANT NOTE only for UK Digital Cable viewers: There are two types of Digital Cable viewing box that we know of. The EARLY model by Pace, model No D1000T uses NON industry standard infra-red (it uses infra-red known as IRDA standard which is used by computer peripherals to communicate). Pronto can NOT learn these code (and no other learning remote can either)"

"However the newer model DI4001N can be learnt without problem"

"Sky-Digital, On-Digital, and analogue viewers are NOT affected by this problem, and Pronto will learn these products (and just about any other product) 100% okay"

Hoorah for Sky users (sorry)....

Hope this helps...

Tristian

Tristian, and Teresa,

I have my fingers, arms, and legs crossed that Teresa finds that this works (I hope so, as it's rather difficult actually doing anything whilst everything is crossed...)

I am amazed that 1-for-all has managed to do this. I would love to know HOW they managed it.

One small possible reason, is that the 1-for-***6*** may be hardware-wise different to the other 1-for-alls, and IS capabile of IRDA. That would answer it (and would also mean Pronto wouldn't learn the codes).

Can't wait to hear...

Mike
Let's Automate

A couple of comments: The IrDA format can be viewed as comprising two levels. The first level is the physical encoding scheme (i.e. how the bits are represented by pulses of IR). The second, "protocol", level defines how those bits and bytes are arranged into packets of data and the significance of each data field to the sender and receiver.

My guess is that what the folks at C&W/TWT have used (or, strictly speaking, misused)is the first, physical, layer of IrDA. I doubt that the C&W Pace remote control fully implements the complete protocol layer of the IrDA specification.

That said, there is no real hardware barrier that would prevent the typical universal remote transmitter from sending pulse trains which resemble the IrDA physical layer. (With one exception, which I'll get to later.) More likely, the problem learning remotes have with this code is that to them it appears to use both a very high frequency and a complex formatting scheme which sends several different packets of data for each key press. Either or both of those are usually sufficient to throw any learning algorithm for a loop.

So, in my opinion, the advantage the One For All product has is that it is upgradeable, i.e. once the engineers figured out how to "hard code" the C&W format, it could be directly loaded into the remote without a need for any intermediate learning step. I'm not sure that this bodes well for the Pronto hopes, though.

As last word, the one hardware aspect of IrDA that I'm sure One For All doesn't replicate is the infrared wavlength. IrDA devices (Pace included) use an infrared wavelength of 880 nM. All normal consumer electronics devices use 940 nM. It would be dumb for One For All to build a remote equipped with 880 nM IR diodes when everything in their world uses 940 nM.
Since 880 and 940 nM are not THAT far apart, the usual symptom of using the wrong wavelength is a small to moderate loss of range. It will be interesting to see if users of the One For All notice any difference realtive to the original equipment remote.

Sob, sob, sob! It didn't work. The One For all controls the set top box, but when the Pronto learns the codes, they don't work. I've tried all the Tips and Tricks for learning IR codes, but with no success.

However, I will keep the One For All because at least I can use it for most of the functions that I need for
cable viewing. I can change channels, control the volume and very importantly, due to the widescreen switching problems with the box, I have a macro to set the TV back to 4:3 mode. But for full control of my home cinema, the One For All is no match for the Pronto.

One for All have been very clever to work out these codes. But they are still in beta test and not all functions are available. It seems that whoever set the codes up is not very familiar with the set top box usage as, for example, they have provided the key to bring the favourites up but no OK key to select a channel. There is an OK key but it only works when the menu key is pressed to bring up the EPG. The other problem is that the IR beam is quite narrow and the remote has to be pointed quite accurately at the box. This is not the case for my other devices and
I can bounce the beam off the walls and ceiling. "alfaman" is probably correct about One For All using the wrong wavelength. The original remote is much more powerful.

If One For All can make a relatively cheap remote control an IRDA device, then surely it should be possible for Philips to incorporate this technology in a future version of the Pronto. I still desperately want one fully customisable remote to control all my devices.

Sob, sob!

Teresa

Teresa,

Is it not possible to get your cable company to provide you with one of the newer boxes, which according to Mike Huggins will work with the Pronto?

Duncan,

I phoned Telewest this morning, and as I expected, they only provide the Pace DITV1000.

I visited the Pace web site to see if I could find anything further on the new 'working' digital cable box to discover that is apparently only available with NTL.

There is a new box as well for Cable & Wireless, Di4000, which according to PACE is simillar to the NTL box. Unfortunately it doesn't say if it works with standard IR like the Di4001. If anyone has this new box, or knows someone with it please could you post here to let us know if it works.

I have emailed the Pace technical support via their website but not sure if I expect a reply!

Teresa - if this box does support standard IR there may be some hope for in the future as if I remember rightly the original Di1000 was used by Telewest and C&W so they may yet get the Di4000.

I will also post this question as a new thread to increase the chance of finding a C&W di4000

Having taken delivery of my new C&W digital set top box yesterday; I have only just discovered the incompatibility of the Pronto/PACE configuration. I have just read the forum on this subject with great interest, and although I feel there is little I could contribute to the puzzle, I would just like to commend all contributors for all their efforts to resolve this problem. I shall of course watch with hope & interest to see if a solution can be found. Please don’t give up!

David,

What is the model number of your Pace box, Di1000 or Di4000?

Duncan,

It's a Di1000.

Am I right in thinking that the 4000 might offer a solution to our problem? Do we just need to find someone with a model 4000 to test the theory?

In a very short space of time my feelings towards this problem has shifted from disappointment to frustration.

It seems to me our best hope is an external sensor connected to the ‘IR blaster In’ socket. Am I right in thinking this could be a viable solution, and if so, what do we think the chances of such a device being produced?

The digital upgrade has only just begun in London and I have entered this forum very late on. I can see many people have devoted much time and effort to the cause. I will of course be happy to help in any way I can to get this problem resolved.

The NTL digital box appears to work with the pronto, according to Pace's web site the NTL model Di4001 is based on the Di4000 which the site says is the new box for C&W. Given the two are merging it would be sensible for their technology to be compatible.

In short - yes we need to find someone with a Di4000. Though the fact that youve just had it installed and got a Di1000 would seem to imply C&W aren't yet distributing the newer model.

I did email Pace to see if they could tell me if the Di4000 accepted 'normal' IR commands but to date have had no response.

Ok, I have just sent the following to the Cable & Wireless technical department, I also sent it to their customer services recommending that they may want to advice their customers of the incompatibility problems at the point of digital upgrade:
------------------------------------------------------

I have recently had my Cable television upgraded to digital. The model number of the box is Di1000. Although I am very happy with the system, there is one area of the technology that leaves cause for concern: The incompatibility with universal remote controls.

This problem was first identified nearly a year ago in the North of England, where as you know, the digital upgrade has been underway for some time.

Users of the 'Philips Pronto' universal remote have been searching for a solution to this problem ever since, and a detailed account of their progress can be found here:

[Link: remotecentral.com]

As you can see, all parties involved have been very co-operative in trying to solve this matter, and the latest correspondence indicate an urgent need to test the Set Top Box model number Di4000, to ascertain it’s compatibility.

I would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether this particular model is available in this region, so that we may arrange a test.

I believe an answer to this question and a solution to this problem is in everyone’s best interest. As you may know, A universal remote control is the cornerstone of many peoples Audio Visual Systems, and although the majority may not own a unit as sophisticated as the ‘Philips Pronto’, the proliferation of the ‘One for All’ controllers is very widespread. I feel sure that Cable & Wireless (NTL) will have to field a growing amount of queries relating to this problem as the change over to digital progresses.

I would be very interested in any thoughts you may have on this subject, and more importantly whether you have a Di4000 we could test.
-----------------------------------------------------
I shall wait for a responce

Hi all,
Having read this thread with interest, I would like to add my 4 penny worth !
I have a Pace DITV1000 from CWC/NTL. My old One4All (Topline 5) could not control it. However One4All have now exchanged the Unit (F.O.C. top marks to Universal Electronics!) for a URC-7560 which DOES control the Box and will learn from the original remote. However I can confirm that the Range is SERVERLY shortened (approx 1.5M MAX)and the angle of approach is critical. It would seem that the thoughts on Wavelenghth are corect, as the same remote works the TV in ANY direction in the room. So technically it works, but practically, it doesn't !
I await word from One4All on any possible soultions.

Sounds like a good plan. I just got a Pronto 'cause trying to learn the IR codes from the Pace remote caused my Cambridge Audio M1 (i.e. Remote Angel) to crash! Crushed that the Pronto has the same problem.
A new set-top box would seem to be the solution but how long will it take and how much will it cost? I haven't even got cable email yet so I'll have to remain sceptical over whether C&W will cooperate!

I just had digital cable installed this morning by Cable London (owned by Telewest / C&W) and they have given me the DITV1000 box, which will not work with my Pronto. I guess there may be a wait for the newer box, although Pace's website says it is currently being distributed.

The thing that caught my eye was the mention in the technical manual that came with the box of an optional IR controller for using the box from another room. The diagram shows it plugging into the IR remote port on the back (not the IR Blaster one). The manual simply states that you should contact the cable provider for information, which I haven't done yet, I wonder if this may be a solution (assuming it is even available).