Any drawbacks to X-10 Pro XPCR?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stu Alden on May 22, 2008, 9:28 pm
Please log in for more thread options years ago. I was just wondering if they have any drawbacks -- e.g., do they handle extended codes correctly? Thanks. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by BruceR on May 22, 2008, 10:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options this were 1989 I'd say go for it but it's not and there are far superior devices available now. The XPCR will not handle dims properly, or extended codes or even Leviton's HC line of X10 devices. There are other repeaters/boosters/couplers that have become available and over the years I have tried them all. There is ONLY one that stands far and above the others and really solves virtually all X10 signal problems. It is the XTB-IIR from Jeff Volp. Don't bother wasting your money on anything else. You can buy one directly from Jeff Volp at http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm Stu Alden wrote: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Stu Alden on May 23, 2008, 5:15 am
Please log in for more thread options Thank you - when I saw prices like $16 and no good description of
capabilities I suspected something might be wrong. I'll take a look at the XTBs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Jeff Volp on May 23, 2008, 10:14 am
Please log in for more thread options The older Leviton repeater was the 6201. I have two sitting on the shelf
today. One was used at our last house, and it did better than a .1uF capacitor. However, due to its transformerless supply, the amount of power it can deliver is limited, and it can't compete with the many "signal suckers" found in the average home today. As Bruce said, it also had issues with X10 codes that deviated from the fixed 22-bit format. Leviton replaced that model with the HCA02, but there were still reports that dimming didn't work properly. Dimming is one thing I took pains with in the XTB-IIR. After the first dim (which is repeated like all other X10 commands), every sequential dim is also repeated. Extended commands are not "repeated" to avoid the possibility of collisions. However, they are transmitted and received in their entirety through either the digital I/O port or the X10 Input receptacle. An earlier version of the firmware did repeat the "standard format" portion of an extended command, but even that had to be eliminated because of conflicts with certain Leviton devices. Jeff > The XPCR is the older and more costly version of Leviton's repeater. If
> this were 1989 I'd say go for it but it's not and there are far superior > devices available now. The XPCR will not handle dims properly, or extended > codes or even Leviton's HC line of X10 devices. There are other > repeaters/boosters/couplers that have become available and over the years > I have tried them all. There is ONLY one that stands far and above the > others and really solves virtually all X10 signal problems. It is the > XTB-IIR from Jeff Volp. Don't bother wasting your money on anything else. > You can buy one directly from Jeff Volp at > http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm > > Stu Alden wrote: >> They are available on eBay now for a fraction of their price a few
>> years ago. I was just wondering if they have any drawbacks -- e.g., >> do they handle extended codes correctly? Thanks. >
> | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dan Lanciani on May 23, 2008, 4:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options JeffVolp@msn.com (Jeff Volp) writes:
| An earlier version of the firmware did repeat the "standard | format" portion of an extended command, but even that had to be eliminated | because of conflicts with certain Leviton devices. Interesting. Which Leviton devices and what was the conflict? The ACT repeater repeats the whole extended sequence so I need to avoid such devices... Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Any drawbacks to X-10 Pro XPCR? | May 22, 2008, 9:28 pm |
> years ago. I was just wondering if they have any drawbacks -- e.g.,
> do they handle extended codes correctly? Thanks.