In the past (some years ago), I bought a 'One For All' URC-7550 ( [Link: oneforall-int.com] ), believing it would solve the problem of the many remotes currently stacked in a little basket at the side of my chair.

I diligently set it up - used it for a couple of weeks and then reverted back to using the individual remotes. There was always something that you wanted to do that you couldn't with the OFA - and even if you programmed some of the keys to do it, the function was often used so infrequently that I couldn't remember the key I'd programmed without writing down a long list of all the buttons!

I still like the idea of a single remote, but it would have to effectively get rid of the half dozen or so at the moment, be able to replicate all their functions, and not hide them so I have to have a crib sheet just to look up the button I need to press!

I know some people say that touchscreens can be difficult to use without looking at them therefore 'hard buttons' can be better. I've looked at a few and think I like the look of something like the Harmony 525 - it would simplify things for my wife as well. But at the same time I also like the look of the older Pronto's 890, 940 and the Neo (on eBay) - but they of course lack hard buttons!

I can't quite make my mind up - but would prefer not to use it for a week and then go back to all the other remotes again.

Any guidance, or people that had similar experiences?

URC's MX-700 or MX-850. The 700 is IR only, the 850 RF. They have a huge database of codes for every remote, because they are PC programmable. They also have an LCD screen that is non-touchscreen. The LCD screen allows you to label the buttons next to them so that you always know which button is which. They will consolidate every remote you have.

A bit pricier than the one-for-all, but definitely worth it.

Thanks - I hadn't considered URC as I'm in the UK, and at first glance it seems to be difficult to get hold of them over here (unless someone knows otherwise!).

I could import from the US as an option as eBay doesn't look too good for them either, but would there be any "european vs US" compatibility problems doing that? Or is that just not an issue?

I don't think the compatibility would be a problem...but I'm not exactly sure as I've never worked in the UK.

Don't get a URC from ebay. You can't get the software if you don't buy from an autorized dealer.

Check out

www.proremotes.com
www.surfremote.com
www.bluedo.com

I've been looking at the URCs (only bluedo seem to ship internationally), and noticed some of their other models... Including the MX-500

Do you have any views on the MX-500? I know it isn't computer programmable - but is that the main drawback between it and the MX-700? The price is certainly closer to my budget anyway... Plus there's the consumer varieties, URC-200/300 too...? :-)

YES! That's the main drawback.

Computer programmibility allows you to get discrete codes ("on" or "off" instead of "power", "input 1" or "input 2" etc vs. "source"...) that are not included on the OEM remotes. You can download codes not in the database. This allows you to program effective macros, which is a string of commands. (Such as pressing "Watch DVD" will turn the TV on, to the DVD input, turn a reciever to the DVD input, turn on the DVD player, and eject the drive tray.)

The MX-500 also does macros but can be tougher if you can't get discretes.

However, if you simply want to consolidate, and not use macros, the MX-500 will work well. It'll replace all the OEM remotes.

seajays, I used a Sony RM-VL700 for years, then a VL900. I had all of the OEM remote functions programmed on the Sonys. I bought a cheap Radio Shack 15-2104 to teach the Sonys discretes and other functions which weren't on the OEM remotes. The VL900 (and the VL600 which replaces the 700/900) also has macros. It all worked well.

But, like you, I needed a crib sheet to remember where infrequently used functions were located. And some of the device functions (such as the DVD) were spread across more than one remote device key, because there weren't enough buttons on a single device key. I used my desktop publishing software to create a lovely little booklet, with the centre two-page spread having a complete chart of all the devices/buttons/functions. But every time I needed to look something up, I had to dig out the booklet. Every time I made a change to the remote's programming, I had to reprint the booklet.

Finally, it was time to move to the next level. Like you wrote, I strongly dislike touchscreens, because I like to be able to one-hand the remote entirely by feel, in the dark. I set my sights on a MX-700, but eventually ended up buying the MX-850 with RF 250 base, because of the cursor pad/backlight/colour as opposed to the 700. I didn't need RF, but now that I have it, it will get used.

An LCD for labeling turns out to be a real bonus, and having four pages per device means everything can fit. In fact, I have a 'Home Theatre' device which allows me to do all my commonly used functions (including macros) all on a single device, so I only have to change devices for those infrequently used functions. The LCD hard buttons can still be operated by feel, so I don't often have to look at the remote. But when I do, the buttons are properly labeled, and the backlight is there.

Being computer programmable, I found the 850 to be hands down the easiest remote I have ever programmed! I've never used the 500, but to save money it could be used just as well by teaching it the necessary discretes and other functions, as I did with the Sonys.

Hope that helps.

Definately try the Harmony 525. It is readily available in the UK and will do everything you want it to do. Easier to program than the URCs, at least as powerful(in my opinion more powerful) and much cheaper.

For some feedback from UK users, check the remote control forum at www.avforums.co.uk. You'll find lots of happy Harmony users there.

The Harmony's also a good remote. I prefer the MX-xxx series because of the bigger LCD screen that labels each button. I think it's more user-friendly than a Harmony, but that's just my opinion.