Ponydoc--David suggested several months ago when I was in your boat (total newbie) that I check out www.htd.com for their controller / amps (to connect the audio source--like stereo, CD player, iPod, etc.--to the speakers). I liked what I saw and bought from them. It's a couple of weeks away from being installed, so I can't comment on how I like it, etc., but it has great reviews on the website. Please see an earlier post I started on "whole house audio"; I asked a lot of the same kind of questions you probably have. I just ordered the Squeezebox Duet. I didn't want to miss the sale, but also didn't want it too soon--we won't be moved in for about 4 more weeks. I hope I can at least try it out before the return policy ends.

oh well you have every type of connection on there you could get and you only need ONE! IF you have an HDMI cable that goes from your TV to the DVR player that is it that is all you need disconnect all those other cables! the HDMI is video and audio all in one cable that is the advanatage of HDMI one cable and the highest quality. The other options are only to be used if you are using devices that do not use HDMI. So plug the HDMI cable to either the DVR or the DVD depending on which one you want to use, then use the the red and white RCA jacks on the tv (it does not matter if there is a yellow one beside it that yellow is for video not audio so you will use the red and white only) plug your headphones red and white male cords in to those red and white female out jacks on the tv. That is all! leave all other cords out of the equation. As long as all of your devices that you want to connect to the tv have HDMI use that. IF your tv did not have HDMI then you would use the 3 colored ones yellow white and red that carries video on yellow and right and left audio on the red and white. Ok try that just the HDMI cable and your head phones. BE sure that the source input on the tv is set to HDMI if that is what you will be plugging the DVR or DVD into, if the source input is not selected on the tv you will not be getting the signal. This statement right here is very baffling -a 3-prong (yellow, red & white) from the TV (video out) to the three middle (audio out) jacks on the DVR. you state you are going from tv out to DVR out you can not go from out to out there has to be an IN for anything to work. But you do not need those cables so remove them completely from the equation. HDMI out from DVR to HDMI cable IN on the tv period. Headphones base unit red and white male plugs into the TV red and white female audio out jacks. Period

"Hi Anthem, and Happy 4th!" Same to you. "You don't know how much money I have. I have a lot." Good for you. All relative I guess. Glad you have a lot, buf if you have a lot, why do you fret over supporting other people ? If you have a "lot" why don't you give away most of it to the beggars with sores that seem to be so important to you ? Why are you asking others to forgo their desires when you yourself have "a lot" ? "You don't know what kind of house I can afford." You are correct. Nor did I ask or care to really know. "Maybe nicer than yours!" To each their own. Again subjective, but I seriously doubt it. "My reasoning has nothing to do with "libertarian" principles." Good. "You don't sound like a libertarian BTW you sound like a Republican" OK. . . So what difference does what I sound like ? I never said I was a libertarian, democrat, or Republican. What relevance does my political leanings have ? "...if only these terms weren't so boring and narrow. I'm an unaffiliated voter myself." Good for you, but I fail to see why that has any relevance or why you it enters this discussion. "I think you lack imagination. I don't believe humans cause global warming but I do believe in finite resources." Finite resources, yes. Humans don't cause global warming ? You're kidding right ? Maybe not directly but absolutely indirectly. Without humans, there wouldn't be anywhere near the carbon footprint that we have now. "My objection to the OPs post wasn't actually related to his elaborate (and evidently dysfunctional) wiring scheme, but to his personal environmental footprint. Try really hard to imagine the moment when technology development stops keeping up with rampant overconsumption of non-replenishable resources." rileysmom, your stated immoral objections have been noted before. It appears that anyone who spends (or apparently capable of spending) more than what you think is a reasonable amount is immoral - and that you feel the need to tell others that their are needy people in the world. I'm not sure it has to do with environmental footprint either as you don't really know his environmental/carbon foot print and/or otherwise. But seriously I don't see your concern for environmental footprint as you don't mention it anywhere. You started off as you did before over the fact that someone else spent more than what YOU consider acceptable and called it immoral. Here, let me refresh your memory "I was wondering: does anyone else think the OPs house is practically immoral? If you have enough money for 11 refrigerators (just had to have each and every one of them, huh?)". . . . Now its environmental ? "If he'd added a paragraph or so about using ICF construction (do you know what that is?) I'm quite familiar with ICF. ICF works really well for "simpler" houses and is a nightmare with more complex houses. Complex houses might be immoral to you, so that would preclude that issue for you though, right? Besides there are quite a few diverging opinions on using concrete and by extension ICF. While less wood is used, it isn't any more energy efficient than a well built/insulated house. I think the discussion of "green" revolves more around energy efficiency than the actual material being used. It's just that people choose to use insulated concrete forms because its cheaper to attain the same level of energy efficiency than its counterpart - but again with significant drawbacks (especially when it comes to flexibility or automation, which the original poster did do (or attempt to do)). "low VOC finishes" low-voc is definitely human healthier, but it remains to be seen if it has any real relevance to environmentally healthier. The majority of low or no voc paint has enough enviro-unfriendly ingredients that no matter what you do it isn't environmentally better. It's just less voc's being emitted into the household. "or even...energy star appliances" I don't know his appliances or items, but usually anyone who is into automation is going to have fairly high-end appliances which almost certainly are "energy star" appliances. By the way, energy star is a MINIMUM standard. It's such a poor standard that I am not even going to get into it. It's meant to establish a minimum standard so that the average consume shopping for a refrigerator isn't going to be ripped off by an energy inefficient refrigerator. Most anyone who spends big bucks on autmation is going to be buying in the subzero, viking, GE monogram, Liebherr type of level which are all well beyond energy star minimum ratings.. . . "for all 11 refrigerators and 4 dishwashers and maybe 2 laundry rooms) I'm sure his megamansion wouldn't have chapped me quite so badly." And that gets back to the basic question - Why does someone doing beyond YOUR levels dictate them being immoral ? People can spend what they want. If you haven't walked a day in their shoes - why are you calling them immoral for building their house ? Hey, you only need one toilet in a house. How many do you have ? Is it immoral for you to put more than one in your house ? It's all relative depending upon where you are coming from. I just don't get where you think everyone who does a bit more than you, or spends more than you, or is less energy efficient as you is "immoral". "Note this has nothing to do with how much it cost to build and how much it is appraised for now." Not what you said earlier. Should I refresh your memory again ? "Well, I do get a laugh out of something I read somewhere at some time...maybe The Economist? predicting that these whopping huge houses eventually will all be subdivided when the gated communities become the gated slums. Probably this subconscious thought prompted my comment about the poor and downtrodden." I really doubt it in our lifetimes or the next. Most of these won't last beyond a generation or two. And even then, it gets much more complicated with property lines. You're more likely to see teardowns than you will of change of use. The reason you see "mansions" (true sense of the word) in the past being used for multi-tenant is in high-density areas. You don't see today's megamansions in high-density areas. you might call them high-density, but even if everyone bred like rabbits and doubled the current population - it wouldn't change suburban america. Perhaps if you increased the population 10 fold, but we're talking many more generations beyond now.

I'm sort of a small table radio collector. Or perhaps more accurately an "acquirer" because though I don't have an organized collection, I've owned many radios over the years. I had an original Bose Wave radio for about five years. I listened to it every single day. My impressions: it's a very good radioÂvery good sound for such a small footprint. In my opinion sound quality on my particular specimen was very good, mainly because of its exceptionally wide stereo image and good bass response. FM reception was average. But there are several other much less expensive radios offering much better value and sound. Probably the best kept secret in a small table radio is the Sangean WR-1. J&R sells it for $80. This radio is OUTSTANDING if your priorities are small size and excellent sound quality. It's strictly analog--monophonic--no clock--no bells and whistles. It's admittedly a bit bass heavy. Its very small size and high quality put it at the very top of my best *value* list. ItÂs my favorite and an absolutely fantastic value for $80 (check J&R). But, easily, the best sounding, but large, table radio I've ever heard is the Cambridge Soundworks 88CD, which is probably no longer available. I remember paying about $150 for it a couple of years ago. But it's worth much more. Also a bit heavy on the bass, this larger radio could definitely replace an entire stereo system. I know this won't go over well with the Bose people, but both of the above radios sound better than my Bose Wave. At least to my ears. And I did an actual side by side comparison. But dollar for dollar, and for its size, if you're into good sound performance and don't need the "extras," in my opinion the Sangean WR-1 has no equal. And, no I donÂt work for Sangean or any other electronics or advertising concern.