I'm just about to pull the trigger on a 990, and would like to know if anyone has a Pronto NG file (or the codes) for this processor. I checked Remote Central but could not seem to find anything. Thanks

Can th Pronto NG use TSU3000 .pcf files? If so, I've got a couple of files here that might help you.

It can and these are exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks!

Does anyone know of discrete codes for selecting surround mode? The 990 remote has only toggle buttons for Dolby and DTS that sequence through the respective modes. I'd like codes that take me directly to the desired mode, without having to get up and look at the front panel to verify which mode it's in (video on DVI so can't see OSD either).

The files linked to by Gonk only duplicate the 990's remote buttons.

I've found discrete on and off codes on remotecentral, but nothing there has discrete surround mode codes.

Mark

At this time, there are no discrete codes for individual surround modes - all we have are the three mode buttons (Dolby, DTS, and stereo). There have been several requests for a remote command that would scroll the current mode information across the front panel display without changing modes, but we'll have to wait for the firmware update that is in development to find out if that can be added. Since the remote layout is fixed, it would have to use an existing command (such as the navigation "up" button, which does not do anything unless the 990's menu is active).

Could not Outlaw utilize unused codes for these functions in a firmware update? Just like discrete on and off. Their remote doesn't have to change...

I would see two problems with using additional codes. First, it means that users who don't have a third-party universal remote can't make use of the functions tied to those codes - and that could readily be seen as a slap in the face to the typical user who still has their original 990's universal remote sitting on the coffee table. (True, you could "borrow" a second device on the remote and stick the commands there, but the interface would still be pretty clunky.) Second, you have the problem of how to distribute those codes to users whose third-party universal remotes would be well-suited to those codes. If you had a remote that connected to the computer (Pronto, Harmony, or the MX-700 and its siblings), it would be pretty simple. If you had a remote like the MX-500, Chameleon, One-For-All, Sony universal, or any of the numerous other universal remotes that don't have a PC interface, you're going to have a hard time with it - they'll be in similar shape as the folks using the 990's stock remote. I'd be very unwilling to add codes to the mix if I were in their shoes.

Gonk-

I understand your point, but then why did the Outlaws include discrete on and discrete off codes in the firmware but not in their remote?

The purpose for including extra discrete codes, as many other manufacturers do, is so that custom programmable remotes, such as the Pronto which is the subject of this thread, can make use of them:
a) with the larger button real estate they have available
b) to create reliable macros that don't depend on the equipment being in a particular state.
Both reasons apply to discrete mode select codes.

As for distributing the information, the web does a fine job, e.g.:
http://rotel.com/downloads/prontocodes.htm
http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mboard/rc-discrete/list.cgi

In my reading of this forum over the last week, I've seen your posts and the wealth of knowledge that you bring to the forum. I'm surprised that you would take a strong position for not including a feature that is useful to many, is incuded by many competitors, adds zero variable cost, and is very straightforward/localized to implement and test.

The remote does include discrete on and off codes, actually - the discrete on is provided by selecting any input, and the discrete off is provided by the power button.

I'm all for expanding the feature set of an existing product like the 990 through firmware updates, but I also see an argument against adding entirely new codes when many users will be left in the dark - knowing that their processor has a feature, but unable to use it because they haven't bought the right kind of $100+ third-party remote control. For an existing platform like the 990, I'd much rather they strive to add the most possible functionality within the constraints of the included remote control. For a future platform, where the remote control limitations are not already fixed, my viewpoint changes. I say that in spite of the fact that my remote of choice (the MX-700) is one of the remotes that could easily accommodate entirely new IR code commands - if they do choose to expand the feature set with new commands, I'll gladly use them, but I also choose not to expect to see those codes appear on the 990 for the reasons I've listed.

Fair enough.

I don't know, maybe an analogy is: only include printer drivers for the printer sold with the computer?

I don't consider a component's remote control to be equivalent to a printer. A better analogy in this case might be to say "don't add the software for cruise control to someone's car if you didn't also give them the buttons to operate the cruise control."

Landon-

I love analogies:

1) How about an iPod adapter in the car (you have to buy the iPod separately, and those w/o an iPod get no benefit). To gonk's point only a few automakers include it. Yet some do.

2) How about those pesky 2 extra channels that the 990 has that my old Denon did not. If I want to make use of them I'll have to buy 2 more channels of amplification and 2 more speakers for my 5.1 setup.

3) Firmware... how about "2 channel subwoofer offset"? (not to mention the 2nd sub out jack that must have added close to $1 to my price). I'd have to buy another sub to use it. Those few people who already have spent big $$$ for a 2nd sub may like it, but should I be insulted that Outlaw included it in my 990?

- this is fun, isn't it?

I may be misunderstanding your third item, 3no, but the two-channel sub offset doesn't require you to have a second sub - it requires to you have a sub, so that you can turn that sub down when listening to two-channel material, but it has nothing to do with two subs.

Before we get too carried away with our analogies, I was wondering something earlier this morning in relation to the root of our discussion. As I understand it, the original request here (aside from the Pronto file that started the thread) was for discrete commands for directly activating each different processing modes. Taken literally, that's at least 24 discrete commands (Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital EX, Dolby Digital plus Pro Logic II-C, Dolby Digital plus Pro Logic II-M, Dolby Digital plus Pro Logic IIx-C, Dolby Digital plus Pro Logic IIx-M, Dolby Stereo, Dolby Digital plus Dolby Virtual Speaker, Pro Logic II-M, Pro Logic II-C, Pro Logic II plus Dolby VS, Pro Logic IIx-M, Pro Logic IIx-C, Pro Logic IIx plus Dolby VS, DTS, DTS ES-Matrix, DTS plus Pro Logic IIx-C, DTS plus Pro Logic IIx-M, DTS plus Dolby VS, Stereo, Stereo 5, Stereo 7, Upsample, and Stereo Bypass - and I probably missed a couple). Obviously this is technically feasible, and I can see a few scenarios relating to macros where it could be useful, but in general that seems really tedious to actually use. If Outlaw were to actually follow through with adding that many discrete codes, I think I would have to change my position on the issue - I doubt most users of the stock remote or of universal remotes that lack PC connectivity would care overly much about not being invited to the party if the party gets that complex. In my case, I'd probably end up dumping all 20+ commands into my MX-700 just for the sake of completeness, but then only map a handful of those commands to different device pages (upsample, PLIIx-M, and Stereo 7 to the CD input, for example). I do still think that I'd rather see a remote command added that would display the current surround mode on the front panel display (possibly followed by the incoming signal format while we're at it) before programming time was invested in all of those discrete codes, simply because that single command would be likely to be much more widely and easily used.

+1

Lonster

sure is
me too
Even better, but only after they put the OSD on DVI (or maybe on HDMI by then). Although it does pose problems for music listening with the projector off.
Properly structured software to do this (and we should assume Outlaw has top notch folks doing this) would be table driven, and the difference between 100 codes and 120 would simply be 20 more table entries. That's why this is such an easy decision to include the new codes as the implementation time/effort is low, as is the risk of collateral damage. It's there for those that need it, and doesn't harm those that don't.

The OSD can't be put on DVI with the hardware currently in place - the DVI inputs are switched directly to the DVI output, with no digital video processing (so no way to introduce additional data of any kind into the signal path). No amount of software changes will change that limitation, I'm afraid. Looking toward future products, however, I hope that it will be possible to include transcoding of analog video sources to a digital video output - which would allow a single monitor output to carry every incoming video signal. (Much like the 990 and the 1070/970 added transcoding to component, something that the 950 could not do.)

My only point on the priorities for programming is that the current mode display is a separate task from discrete mode selection, and that the mode display is likely to benefit more users. If the mode display can be done, I'd think it would offer more "bang for the buck." Of course, if there's something that prevents the current mode display, I wouldn't want its absence to stop there from being discrete mode selections.

That's what I meant by "or maybe on HDMI by then". It will be the next generation by the time we get an OSD on digital video, and HDMI will be the standard by then. Putting mode status on the OSD only helps those who are limited to component video.

As, so we're in agreement on the HDMI. The status I'm thinking of (scrolling the info across the front panel display) would help anyone using component or DVI who have their gear in a visible location, which of course isn't everyone but is still a decent number of folks.

Mine's in the back near the PJ, like most FP-based theaters. I expect most RP or plasma-based theaters have it in the front near the TV.

If nothing else this exchange got my post count into double digits

- See, we've had a productive discussion on several fronts.