Okay, sorry, I should have said you're gadget challenged. I do use this stuff all the time, I don't always use all the components, which is where my problem of keeping track of what widget goes with which gadget comes from. Mark get a Squeezebox for streaming music throughout the house and outside. The wireless Squeezebox can also be hard wired. I absolutely LOVE mine. Not only do they stream internet radio and your music collection but you can sign up for Pandora which essentially allows you to create your own streaming stations based on what music you like. If you are so inclined, the source code is available for the Squeezebox so you can modify them but they have so many features built in you don't really need to. They can also be integrated into a server. I'm not too worried about any of this becoming obsolete very soon. Too few people are aware of this technology and what it can do. I've even read on techdirt and /. people stating you need your computer turned on and running at all times in order to use VOIP and stream music. Funny, VOIP and my Squeezebox work fine with my computer torn apart while doing surgery on it. I guess they've never heard of a router or ethernet adapters. The issue, as I see it, is the cellphone industry is now claiming to be "wireless", which it is, but it's not the same as wireless computing and that confuses the average person. And the streaming internet/music industry has people confused by stating these products use regular radio frequencies, which it does, but most people don't realize they aren't talking about analog devices. Until the masses better understand what's available and the potential, the technology/gadgets won't advance that fast (or not before what I already have wears out). It absolutely floors me that people still buy analog stereo equipment. Now that's obsolete. I only use headphones outside when I'm too lazy to drag a set of speakers outside, since I haven't gotten around to buying wireless speakers yet. For the record, I don't even own a cellphone but I'm anxiously awaiting wifi VOIP technology to advance a little further. Since I already use WISP and VOIP. Kevin, sometimes I just get tired of listening to myself think. There is some very cool new music out there that a person would never know about if it weren't for internet music.

Randy, When I saw the title of your post, I wondered if you can even still get CD recorders, however, you can get DVD recorders pretty cheap now. What about one of those? The only issues I can think of are 1) most need a video signal to record, they won't run without it (but you could experiment) - it could be anything, a feed from a camera or a cheap test pattern generator... The other issue is whether you'd have trouble ripping the audio from the dvd, although there's plenty of software out there to do it, much of it free for download....of course, you could also just digitise it in through your audio inputs, I seem to remember Windows have that provision somewhere.... You can get a DVD recorder for less than $200 and the quality's good, even better than CD depending on your options....and the recording duration can be quite lengthy depending on quality levels ( it affects video, not sure if audio's scaled back too) and if you get a dual-layer recorder, well even longer. Lots of these recorders work with rewritable disks, so there's a saving for you.

I took a quick look at a review for the InstantMusic box and it is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. I actually have a stereo system (receiver, turntable, cassette deck, CD player) hooked up to an Onkyo audio hub (no longer made) which then feeds my Macintosh. Works great. Mine just converts to bits, and the software I use has to convert into the various music formats; this goes one step further. For $40 or so, it looks like just the ticket. The various music formats. There are a bunch of them. AAC, MP3, and WMA are the most popular. AAC is the format used on iPods and Apple's iTunes by default. Apple claims that AAC results in better-sounding files that are the same size as MP3 files. I don't know anyone who has a particular opinion on that, though I'm sure this is discussed to death elsewhere on the Internet. Music you buy from the Apple iTunes Music Store also is AAC-encoded. One disadvantage is that music from the iTunes Music Store has additional coding that makes it difficult to move those files to a non-Apple player (the main exception being iTunes for Windows). MP3 is the more generic format. iPods can play MP3s as can digital audio players from whoever is left in the business (Apple owns about 80% of the legal digital music business). WMA is a Windows Audio format. I don't know a lot about WMA other than Microsoft would prefer you use it. :-) I have not heard that it sounds significantly better or worse than any other format (including ones I haven't mentioned here); the big issue with WMA is that if you're not using a Windows-based system for playback, it will be harder for you to find a player for WMA-encoded files. Not impossible; just harder. It's not as popular a format as AAC or MP3. The general things to remember about digital audio formats are 1) that the smaller the file, the less good it sounds. That may not be a big deal if you're listening through iPod earbuds or a portable speaker or your cell phone -- it may sound just fine through those devices. It might be a bigger deal if you pipe your music to a quality home stereo. But it costs you pretty much nothing to try it for yourself; and 2) unless you have access to an "uncompressed" digital file of the music (or the original record/tape/CD), once you "rip" it into one of these formats, converting it to another format often causes some audible damage to the file. Then there's the labor that entails. So you might want to think just a bit about the format in which you want your music. It would be a pain to have to convert hundreds of files if you decide to move to another player that can't handle your chosen format.

It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Ktleey is fair to say what he has to say. Unfortunately in the AV space there are two extremes to it. There are people who will want to DIY everything and put things together to make them do what they want (without the usual original intent of the product). Then there is the other group that doesn't want anything to do with it and just wants ease of use, ergonomics, and a headache free setup. The problem is both sides don't see the other - the DIY sides can't fathom the dollars being spent to do what they think they can accomplish with less and the other side doesn't want the headaches associated with a diy type of setup. Then there are all the people in between who want the most for the least amount of money. The key is the amount of 'tweaking' involved - that and the integrator. The PS3 is a great device. Is it the best for a homeowner that doesn't want any exposure to the underlying things ? most definitely not. Is the the "most powerful", depends on the user. But relatively speaking, for most probably not. I love to tweak. but at the same time, I understand that what goes into the house - needs to be the most user friendly setup for the homeowners (and guests of homeowners). That means that things are limited/controlled as to what can and cannot be done and how things are done. You are talking extremes in price - but I'd venture to say that most people would take a K-scape/Crestron setup over a PS3 setup in a theater almost any day of the week. Granted, it can't handle streaming of blu-ray (yet, announced but not released). But then again, if you want streaming blu-ray Axonix does this now as well, albeit the same as the Sony PS3 - illegally. Managed Copy is the issue for everyone right now. But getting back to the original - how much do you want to tweak is the main question. For a theater - you are free to tweak if you want. If you use the automation for other things in the house (especially lighting), I would highly recommend that you go toward the more reliable, less tweaked options. Your significant other (and potentially future homeowners) will not want to live with light switches not turning on lights reliably. That means 100% of the time without delay - not most of the time, or almost all of the time, or whatever.