JP1 Remotes

I've created a PB file here:
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=9259

and here's the protocol code:

Upgrade protocol 0 = 00 1C (S3C8+) Denon modified (PB v4.02)
3D 92 11 8B 16 49 05 08 00 84 01 75 00 84 03 87
83 C2 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 5F A0 0C 05 76 03 01
6B 0D E4 25 1C E4 26 1D 0C 03 09 12 E6 24 02 18
03 90 C1 0A FC 19 05 F6 FF 57 F6 01 0A FB 09 F6
FF 57 F6 01 0A 7B F8 AF 6C 05 F6 FF 57 C6 F8 FF
FF F6 01 58 6A F4 AF 60 04 60 05 F6 01 46 60 04
60 05 F6 01 46 AF
End

This is very experimental, so it might take some testing to get it to work right.

It works !

I'll have fun playing with that

Thanks

Cool! If you have to tweak it to get it just right, let me know.

Will this file work with Denon-K protocol? I tried it with no apparent effect, but I don't really know what I am doing.

This is a customized version of the regular Denon protocol, so it would only work as a replacement for the same. do you have the same issues as the OP only with a Denon-K upgrade?

If so, please describe what is happening for you and what you would like to see happen differently?

The Robman wrote:This is a customized version of the regular Denon protocol, so it would only work as a replacement for the same. do you have the same issues as the OP only with a Denon-K upgrade?

If so, please describe what is happening for you and what you would like to see happen differently?

Yes, exactly. My upgrade uses Denon-K. I want to slow down volume change when holding down volume. A single tap changes 0.5, which is fine. But holding it down is ridiculously fast. It jumps at least 15 or 20 before I can let go.
I am unable to make any adjustments between 0.5 and 15 except with multiple taps. Holding down is difficult to time because first I have to wait for a short delay before the repeat even begins, then it suddenly jumps too much before I can react.
I think I want your Denon changes applied to Denon-K.

I have tried to replicate what I did 10 years ago for the regular Denon protocol here:
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=26224

The way I build upgrades using a custom executor is to start with KM using "Manual Settings" selected as the protocol and then cut/paste the protocol from PB into the Notes box in KM. Then you can save it as an RMDU file and continue working with it in RM.

Do you know enough about PB and KM to do this?

The Robman wrote:I have tried to replicate what I did 10 years ago for the regular Denon protocol here:
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=26224

The way I build upgrades using a custom executor is to start with KM using "Manual Settings" selected as the protocol and then cut/paste the protocol from PB into the Notes box in KM. Then you can save it as an RMDU file and continue working with it in RM.

Do you know enough about PB and KM to do this?

No, I don't. But I will give it a try and see if I can figure it out. Thank you.

Then post the upgrade that you're using and I'll pull it together.

https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=26225

Is KM the only way to do this? I don't have Excel.

There is a way to use custom protocols in RM but I've never been able to figure out how to do it, so I just start them using KM.

Ok, I've created an RMDU file for you here:
https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... e_id=26226

If I need to make tweaks to the executor code, I'll post a new executor like the one below, then the way you update the RMDU file, using RM, is like this:

1. First "copy" the executor code (which is red in the example below)
2. Select the Advanced menu item
3. Select Edit Protocol
4. In the Protocol Editor pop-up, select the Hex Code tab
5. Double click on the S3C80, Protocol Code cell
6. Highlight the code and "paste" the new code on top of it, click OK

Upgrade protocol 0 = 00 CD (S3C8+) Denon-K custom (PB v4.02)
45 91 32 8B 12 8F 44 08 08 00 DA 00 C6 00 DA 02
7B 90 C9 06 D0 03 54 E4 05 08 B4 06 08 B4 07 08
20 11 F6 01 46 F6 01 0A 7B F8 AF 6C 05 F6 01 46
C6 F8 FF FF F6 01 58 6A F4 AF
End

I encountered problems and it does not work. Not sure what to do. I loaded your file in Device Upgrade Editor and it said:

Protocol is a manual protocol. Its PID may be changed by setting an Alternate PID.
Protocol ID already used in another device upgrade by a different protocol. An Alternate PID is required.

So, I entered an alternate pid of 00 CE, and the error went away. Then I saved everything and uploaded to my remote. It does not control the receiver at all. Remote lights flash but the receiver does nothing. Did I do something wrong?

Then I tried to open the Device Upgrade Editor a second time, it would not open and said:

The code of the protocol for this device upgrade is not consistent with the protocol default parameters, so the device upgrade cannot be edited. You need to edit the protocol code to correct this, before you can edit the device upgrade.

Please advise what to do next.

You probably didn't do anything wrong, it's probably my code that doesn't work, as I don't really recall what I did 10 years ago. The thing is, for me to try and test this to get it working would require a lot of work and I really don't have the time to dig into it that deep.

As you don't have Excel you can't try modifying it yourself using PB, but you could try using RMPB. I can't offer any advice on using it as I never have, but if you're willing to learn, you could try.

The Robman wrote:You probably didn't do anything wrong, it's probably my code that doesn't work, as I don't really recall what I did 10 years ago. The thing is, for me to try and test this to get it working would require a lot of work and I really don't have the time to dig into it that deep.

As you don't have Excel you can't try modifying it yourself using PB, but you could try using RMPB. I can't offer any advice on using it as I never have, but if you're willing to learn, you could try.

Thanks for your help Rob. I'll see what I can do, but I suspect I may just give up as this seems way too complicated for me. The problem in this thread sounded exactly the same as mine, and appeared to have been solved, so I had hoped I could just reuse the same solution. I am not surprised it is not that easy.