I'm finally upgrading my home theater system and have the following: RCA DLP 50" HDTV, Zenith DVD/VCR combo unit, Comcast digital cable box Motorola (DCT6200), Sony DE897 receiver and am thinking about a VOOM receiver.

I am interested in a REAL UNIVERSAL remote, not one that claims to be! If it were just me, I'd probably be OK with four or more remotes. But I'd like to simplify things for my wife and kids, so I'm not the only one who can set up a DVD movie!

It sounds like the MX-500 has a lot of fans, even though I think it's been in the marketplace for a few years now.

The URC-200 looks like it might be the MX-500's successor. I also like the 200's looks a lot better and don't mind spending the extra money IF it is equal to, or better than, the MX-500.

Anyone have experience with one or the other (or preferably BOTH!) and can tell me which one is easier to program and is easier to use?

The URC-200 is far more powerful, however there are those who prefer the layout of the MX-500, especially for PVR's.

I see you don't have a PVR, so you might want to go with the URC-200.

Greg

More powerful? Not as many buttons? Fewer LCD buttons? No dedicated macro buttons?

It has many more macros, more commands per device, better backlighting, etc.

Dundas,

I'm not sure I understand. Are you disagreeing with GregoriusM's claim that the 200 is functionally better than the 500?

URC-200 Advantages

- Newer MX-700 button layout
- Dedicated select button in middle of joystick
- 40 LCD buttons per device compared to 20 on MX-500
- All pages fully customizable -- can be hidden or unhidden
- Macros supported on every LCD button, not just device buttons
- Macros on LCD buttons and power buttons can be configured as either instant press or press and hold
- Supports virtually unlimited number of macros
- Learns IR codes (RC5, etc) that the MX-500 cannot
- smaller profile (8.5 by 2.5" compared to 9.0 by 3.0")
- built-in RF support (requires $50 add-on RF receiver)
- better backlighting

URC-200 Disadvantages

- Five LCD buttons vs 10 on MX-500
- Some people prefer MX-500 layout to MX-700 layout for DVR
- Somewhat better feel on MX-500's FF/RW buttons




What the URC-200 should have been




This message was edited by RonL on 07/27/04 09:49.

I like my MX-500 as I've used it for a while now and it's my entertainment security blanket, but I'm prepared to admit that sometimes newer is better. I've been carefully reviewing the new line of URC remotes and here's my $0.02

The MX-500 key layout is superior. It has the nicer thumb pad. But if you've never used it, I don't think you're going to miss it with the 200. I like having 10 customizable commands at my fingertips as opposed to only five. Five means I'm going to be switching pages all the time just to get to commonly used features. The dedicated chapter-skip keys are a plus, but there are work-arounds to this like using the channel +/- keys. The availability of IRClone-MX to program the MX-500 with has made programming it fun and I've be able to make use of many discrete codes.

The 200 has a smaller, slightly less intimidating form. This is a personal preference, but for smaller hands it should work better. I still prefer the black of the 500, but I also don't like that most components are going silver either. The 200 is upgradable with a ~$100 RF base unit to use RF. I bought a pair of RS IR extenders for $40 and they did the same job, though not at eloquently as the 200 would, I'm sure. The Macro capabilities of the 200 are stronger, but I havent found a real need for these features with my modest setup.

I've come to the conclusion that had both remotes been available when I bought mine, I'd probably be buying the 200 now. But knowing what I know, I'd definitely be missing my 10 LCD commands. If I had the $$ I'd probably be forking out for the 300 - even to replace the 500. I'm not as intimidated by it's touch screen as some. I think it's something I could get used to.

I do not think it is as clear a verdict in favour of the 200 as is being suggested.

The big advantage that the URC-200 has is its better macro capabilities.

The MX500 has 46 buttons initially available per device versus 37 for the URC-200. I personally would much prefer to have 10 buttons per page than 5. In use having to cycle through multiple pages to get to a command is a PITA.

The MX500 also has great software available:

http://www.irclone.com/

and RF capabilities can be added for $40
[Link: bluedo.com]

Surf have the MX500 on now for $89.95

[Link: surfremotecontrol.com]

I had both side by side, programmed for my system, for 2 weeks. The URC-200 won hands down pretty much for the reasons listed by RonL above. Also the ability to add or hide pages is a big plus. I had some simple devices that only need one page and others that needed a few pages. Since the page count can be controlled you are never switching to or through an unused/unwanted page. Having macros on every LCD key was huge for my x10 lighting. Once I go to the x10 device, I have 5 different macros on that page for lighting. The lack of computer programmability is something that may go away in the near future, so long term that may not be a concern.

The URC-200 is perfect for my needs!

Greg

This message was edited by gcutshaw on 07/27/04 20:07.

> The 200 is upgradable with a ~$100 RF base unit to
> use RF.

Actually, the MSRP on the base is $75, and most retailers (GoodGuys, etc) sell it for about $50. I've seen it as as low as $45 online.

IR->RF extenders do not duplicate fully integrated RF functionality, because when you use IR->RF extenders, you still have to point the remote in the direction of the IR transceiver. With RF built-in, you can point the URC-200 in any direction and use it in any room of your house.

That said, there's always the $40 Remote Range Xtender for remotes that use AA batteries. This does add actual RF transmission to the remote through a transmitter in the battery compartment, though it doesn't match the range of the built-in functionality.

> The MX500 has 46 buttons initially available per
> device versus 37 for the URC-200.

The URC-200 does have one more device "hard button" than the MX-500, though.

> In use having to cycle through multiple pages to get
> to a command is a PITA.

With the URC-200, all pages are customizable. Each device has up to eight pages of five buttons, but you can selectively add and remove pages, so you'll never have unnecessary pages to go through.

> Surf have the MX500 on now for $89.95

Cambridge Soundworks has the URC-200 for $118 and the MRF-100 RF receiver for $54. Be sure to use the coupon code "hifi10off100" at checkout.

[Link: cambridgesoundworks.com]

If you were going to spend an extra $80 on Irclone for computer programmability, you might as well step up to the MX-700, which is $189 open-box from Surf Remote Control:

[Link: surfremotecontrol.com]


This message was edited by RonL on 07/27/04 09:59.

For a cheaper alternative to the MRF-100,and you might already have one, try the receiver from the pyramid RF remote-extender set. The cones sold under the brands RCA, X-10 powerhouse,and radio shack.

I have an mx-500 and love it...

I have just rearranged our family room and have run into a problem. The AV center is now behind a big fat chair (I know, dumb, but now there's a great spot for to soon-to-arrive LCD flat panel ;).

I dusted off the old X-10 pyramids I had, and they just don't seem to work well with the mx-500; oddly enough the original Sony Receiver remote and my DirectTivo remote work just fine from exactly the same position and distance.... weird.... anybody got any suggestions???
thx
paul

ps:I would upgrade to one of the combo IR/RF models, but I'd prefer to keep $300 in my pocket. I WOULD stay loyal to URC as I think they make a good product and have seen they stand behind them.

This message was edited by paulv on 08/25/04 01:05 ET.

Check out the RR-X300 here or here.
Previously, it was only available in a "AA" battery version, but the new model is supposed to work with the MX-500/700 and other "AAA" remotes as well.

thanks EAKF... thats a nice clean design...
But before I go down that path... does anybody know of a reason why the mx-500 DOESN'T work too well with the pyramids? (Is this a known problem?)

They work great with mine, two mx-500's working with two setys of pyramids. If you want a remote that communicates directly with the pyramids, thats the mx-600.