semi-mute macro?

mr_d_p_gumby · Post by **mr_d_p_gumby** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:49 pm

It sounds as if you are not in OBC entry mode. Use the OBC button at the top of the Functions sheet to change KM to OBC mode. You should then be able to enter or modify OBC values.

TheShanMan · Post by **TheShanMan** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:24 am

Thanks - that was my problem!

Robman, I tried it out and it worked somewhat, although my power button no longer works (haven't checked to see how many buttons work and how many don't. However, the number of db change still seems somewhat erratic, just as it did with my macro, and it's also very slow (about a second per db). Also, strangely I think it was ignoring the Parm value. I tried 0A and I also tried with it not set at all, and both ways it seemed to generate about 13 or 14 volume changes.

So is this supposed to be inherently different than what a macro might do? In other words, am I going to be able to get a speedy operation with the hacked protocol that I can't get with macros? And should it be inherently more reliable in terms of the number of volume changes? If the answer to these is "no", then I don't see much promise for this approach for me personally, though I do appreciate the effort that has gone into this.

Post by **The Robman** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:49 am

I haven't tested it myself to verify that it's generating the signal that it's supposed to generate, but if it's working as designed it suppsed to simulate the holding of the original button, which is different to having multiple buttons be in a macro.

The first part of all NEC signals has the following format:

header | data | trailer (where the data portion contains the device codes and command code)

For NEC2 signals, when the button is held, this signal is imply repeated, but for NEC1 signals (which is what you're using), when the button is held the signal that is repeatedly sent looks like this...

header | trailer (with no data portion)

Therefore, if you were to include multiple presses of the button in a macro, you would send the first part several times, but if you were to simply hold the button, you would send the "header | trailer" signal several times (after one send of the first portion).

TheShanMan · Post by **TheShanMan** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:29 pm

OK, well that sounds promising then, so how do you want to proceed then? Are you planning to test it, and as my tests would suggest needs to happen, fix it? Or is that the limit of what you can/will do with this, and I should try taking over from here?

Post by **The Robman** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:29 pm

I'm not sure how soon I can do any testing with it myself, so if anyone with 2 remotes and some JP1 know-how wants to take a look at it, please go ahead.

If nobody else takes a look in the next week or so, I'll try to carve out some time.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:16 pm

Questions
1. how come add 32 to OBC not hex?
2. Not that much know-how here, but I can try.
I have airconditioner using NEC1 protocol so could test on temperature button. Or is it important that it be tested on the upgrade from this thread?

TheShanMan, post your IR file as well as the KM upgrade, I can record it on 8910 and IRSA as well. Please include notes someplace which button to press.

Post by **The Robman** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:38 pm

Hi Liz,
Quite alot of devices that use the NEC protocol don't ever set bit5 of the LSB OBC for some reason, the net result from the user's POV is that there are gaps in the OBC sequence from 32 to 63, 96-127, 160-191 and 224-255.

I needed a way to trigger the long-hold feature in the new executor that I wrote, so I decided to use this bit. So, if the bit is clear (as it is all the time currently) the new executor will generate a regular NEC1 signal. But, if the bit is set, the executor code will send the extra-long-hold signal, after first setting the bit back to zero. Therefore, the way to convert a signal from the normal version to the long version is to set that bit, and the easiest way for the user to set the bit is to add 32 to the OBC for the button in question.

For example, if the OBC for the button in question is 1, the LSB binary will look like this...

10000000

If you add 32 to it, the binary for the new OBC of 33 will look like this...

10000100

You'll notice that the only difference is that bit5 (from an LSB POV) is now set.

If you have a device that uses NEC1 with 1 device code (ie, no subdevice code) you can by all means test the protocol yourself. However, the sort of expert testing that I'm looking for is this...

First, create an upgrade that uses the new protocol and load it into one remote, then learn the signals using another remote. You should use short button presses and you should set the #repeats to a fairly low number, this is so that (hopefully) the learning remote will capture exactly what's sent as a "sent once" signal, rather than showing the repeating portion as "repeating". Another test would be to set the #repeats to a high value and see if the sending remote's LED stays on for a long time even though you used a short button press. While doing this you should still learn the signal to another remote just to verify that the correct NEC1 signal is being sent.

johnsfine · Post by **johnsfine** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:04 am

If I have guessed correctly what Liz was talking about in previous reference to "IRSA", I expect that can record a longer stream of bursts than a learning remote, so it is a much better tool than relearning to find out whether extended timing is working as intended.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:00 pm

Rob, I get the drift, thanks. I missed the COMP part.
I can't test on my stuff, because it uses subdevice, so I'll record with few strategic numbers to 8910 & IRSA. No big deal. I think

If it works, it'll be obvious, if not - I'll post for your interpretation.
I don't see how it'll use 005A executor after your part, but that's for another story.

John, yes-correct guess. IRSA allows long runs, 3000 time-pairs limit.
Repeating sections,to me, are much easier to see/understand than in IR.

Post by **The Robman** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:11 pm

ElizabethD wrote:I don't see how it'll use 005A executor after your part, but that's for another story.

First you create your upgrade using KM or RM, then when you're copying it over to IR you need to check the "Protocol > FF" box, this will cause the upgrade to use the $015A protocol (ie, the one that I wrote) rather than the $005A protocol.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:59 pm

Rob, it appears not to obey your intentions, but I may well have messed up for which opportunities abound.
KM upgrade I used, IR files, upgrade and 8910 to 8910 learning included in the zip file
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=3756

IRSA Test 234 and 237 - From short presses on 1 and 2, barely taps. I can't make much sense, other than comment that IRSA results normally are on single lines, and here they're broken up [see Edit2].
Don't be confused by a comment inside the file about holding down. The meaning is the time it takes till I pressed next key as the leadout is obliterated when no repeats occur.

Test 235/236 - From LKP, this is what came out from Test 236 in Excel for OBC 1 and 33 (on keys 1 and 2, hex 7F and 7B). Command byte is left of that curious 0 befor the end. And third byte changed?
16-8:01011110 10100001 10000000 01111111 0 1436-PAUSE(0.594seconds)
16-8:01011110 10100001 10000100 01111011 0 1257-PAUSE(0.620seconds)

I understand about 015A. What I don't understand is where's the executor of the whole NEC1 thing. I have the same not understanding problem with a JVC protocol for extra repeats. The timing parameters I can see, the rest is done by the remote?

Edited: Never mind. Other numbers tell me the 3rd byte is just flipped byte 4. No problem here.
Edit2: I updated the first zip file. Please read Test 1 and 2 instead of 237 the zip file. No change in bit pattern. Just change in what displays and how it looks.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:15 pm

Holy smoke, I have a Yamaha receiver at home, TX950RS, 10 years old. NEC1 protocol. Device 122, volume OBCs are 26 and 27.
I can probably test on the real thing if the real thing chooses to cooperate.I never added it to any remote after learning some codes and forgot about it.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:24 pm

Update after some thinking and playing with IRSA

The Robman wrote:You should use short button presses and you should set the #repeats to a fairly low number, this is so that (hopefully) the learning remote will capture exactly what's sent as a "sent once" signal, rather than showing the repeating portion as "repeating".

Maybe this request worked.
I may have better timing values here, but from C7.
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=3772
It appears 7800 is slightly different, or my procedure got different. See notes on General tab.
That zero value we see in IRSA is legit. It's a very, very short time, visible in recording of buttons 2,3,7,8 might be others.
Also, no question (in my head) that there's an attempt to send more data after the first transmission.

The Robman wrote:Another test would be to set the #repeats to a high value and see if the sending remote's LED stays on for a long time even though you used a short button press.

Nope. and IRSA gadget confirms.

Edit:Funny thing in this leraning file is that IR sees subdevice which is NOT in the KM upgrade. 8910->8910 learning didn't do that.
Puzzle after puzzle

This I think, is as far as I can possibly take it now. Enough meddling.

Post by **ElizabethD** » Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:06 pm

Included in this zip file are checks done on my Yamaha tuner: upgrade, test file, data recorded on 8910 & supporting IRSA test file.
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=3783
While this protocol is not sending repeats, and isn't quite right at the end of signals, with that bit5 included, the tuner is willing to repeat forever till the Power button puts it out of its misery.
Is there anything else I can do to help here?
Rob, if you ever manage to do this, do you think something like this can be done for Panasonic Combo?