>I totally disagree with this! First, yes,
>some devices don't work well (such as a
>cable box), but that's why you use a video
>sync sensor. That works perfectly on a box
>that draws minimal power when on vs. off.

This will work fine on a cable box with a video output, but the cable boxes used by our cable company only have an RF output. In my case, the box I'm using has a switched power outlet, which is what I use for power sensing.

>I have a LOT of gear, and I have yet to not
>be able to sense power.

My opinion is to follow the KISS principle with these things. Why sense power when you don't need to? Your point about some devices not accepting additional commands for some amount of time while powering up is certainly a good reason to consider using power sense and there are others. But in many cases, using a power sensor instead of discrete power commands only makes the system more complex, expensive, and prone to failure (as you've introduced yet another device that could break). My opinion is to use discrete commands whenever possible. If you have a good reason to use a sensor in addition to or instead of, go for it.

>You say things get "broken if the user uses
>the original remote or uses front panel
>controls". And that's exactly WHY you'd do
>power sense!

But this only solves the problem for power. Discrete commands also solve this problem for power. For other things, such as selecting a specific video input, discrete commands are incredibly useful.

>No matter what the user does (front panel,
>original remote - which we don't have out
>anyway, those are all put away - no need to
>use them with the Panja automation system),
>with power sense, we can make sure that the
>system is in a reasonable state.

There's no need for the original remotes in a Crestron system either, but I thought the example might help make my point a bit more clear. Discrete commands make sure the system is in a reasonable state too, with far less cost than purchasing a sensor.

>As far as I'm concerned, discrete commands
>(at least for power) are critical if you
>have a "dumb" remote (i.e. a Pronto, for
>example, that has no state). But if you
>have an intelligent, computer controlled
>system, discrete on/off is a big yawner.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I certainly accept that some of your points are valid, but if one wants to keep the system relatively simple (and at a reasonable cost), discrete power codes definitely have their place. Even if using power sense for the other benefits, why not send the discrete power commands if available anyway?

>Other discrete commands (i.e. discrete
>video commands) might be nice for the Sony
>TVs, but it generally takes, at most, 2 or
>3 I/R blasts to get those to operate in a
>discrete fashion, so that hasn't been all
>that important. And, other than the Sony
>TVs (which can trivially be worked around),
>everything else I have already has discrete
>I/R for everything I need.

I thought you wanted your system to work as fast as possible. Isn't 1 discrete command always going to be faster than 2-3 work around commands? What about a device that simply has next/previous video commands and no way to get to a known state (such as many TV's, especially older models)? The obvious answer to this is that these devices often don't have discrete commands anyway [Linked Image from softronix.com]. But I hope you can see my point here.

Geoff

[This message has been edited by greynolds (edited 05-12-2001).]