This isn't bugging me, but 1poorlady is getting annoyed. We have four remotes: satellite, receiver, TV, BR player.

The reason it doesn't really bug me is that the TV remote is always by the TV, and you have to open the cabinet door to turn on the receiver anyway. So you pick up the TV remote, turn on the TV, put the remote down. You don't have to touch that one again until you want to turn the TV off (at which point you have to turn off the receiver and close the door anyway). So for me, that leaves three. But...

If I'm watching satellite, I don't need the BR remote. So it usually resides next to the BR player (since I have to open the door, etc, if I'm planning to watch a disc, so I just grab that remote then). Or, alternatively, if I'm planning on using the BR I don't need the satellite remote.

So really, for all practical purposes, I have two remotes. The receiver remote is necessary in all situations for changing volume, and possibly soundscape and decode mode. And then either BR or satellite (but never both).

Anyway...1poorlady is making noises about a universal remote. I wonder how useful that really is. It won't be able to replace my receiver remote (it has as many buttons as any universal I've ever seen!). Maybe it can do the satellite remote (it would need to do 'guide', 'menu', etc). Replicating the TV remote would be trivial (but also the least-useful in our case). Not as sure about the BR player, but I would think it could do that fairly easily (in terms of available buttons for all functions).

But perhaps it is best to use the receiver remote. I believe it is programmable to control other components (if I can get the right code(s) for them). So then the remote I have all the time anyway takes over the functions of other components (where possible).

Any opinions??

1poorguy