Slashdot Mirror

I've been working on for a few months. We are a 20-gig hard-disk-based car product, with a REAL interface, and a wireless link (which can sync to a number of services). We also showed versions of our products at CES this year which can play MPEG1/2/4 (and DiVX) in both home and car flavors.

Then again, why not go DLP front projector and get a 10 foot picture for a fraction of the giant plasma price?

I just want my next car stereo to have a normal stereo jack input.
So you'll be getting the Aiwa then.
(although I'm sure some others have 'em).

The rest have RCA inputs in the back. On install, you can connect an RCA to 1/8 inch adapter, and have it exposed on the passenger side. Then, connect, select AUX in, and there you go.

according to this site
These JVC blank audio CD-Rs can each hold up to 80 minutes of your favorite music! (Some older component CD-R decks and computer CD-R/W drives may not be able to write more than 74 minutes per disc.) CD-Rs can be recorded once, and will play back in most recent home, car, portable, and PC-based CD players, as well as some DVD players. (For compatibility info on specific DVD player models, see "Key Features" on each player's page.)
Home CD-R components will only record with Audio CD-R blanks such as these.

Fortune Magazine reported in their November 17, 2003 issue that Apex is currently the leader in market share among all DVD player brands. It has 15.4% of the market; second-place Sony has 11.8%. Even cheaper brands of DVD players, with shelf prices as low as $35, threaten to take away some of that market share.

Players capable of streaming content off the network, recording television, or doing anything else over and above playing DVDs are a niche market. Until they can compete with a $35 basic DVD player or a $100 progressive-scan DVD player, they will continue to sell only to a small subset of the electronics-buying population.

http://www.crutchfield.com makes adapters for everything. If you buy a headunit from them, and you tell them what kind of car you have, they send you the adapter for free.

Very few vehicles today have standard sized radios, but there are adapters available for everything, and if you can't find one, you can always get something that is trunk mounted and beams over 88.1 or something along those lines.

Also, don't forget to get a wiring harness adapter (unless you want to cut and crimp the wires yourself.

I've been looking for a new car stereo myself, recently, and I've noticed that Crutchfield sells a bunch with front aux inputs. Just go to "Car Audio & Video", select your car's year/make/model, then go to "All CD Receivers". The "Features & Specs" tab on a each receiver's page will tell you if there's an AUX input, and whether it's on the front or rear. You can also usually confirm this by looking at the photos they've got.

Shameless plug: if you're going to spend $200 or more at Crutchfield please feel free to use my referral code, "phy84-qzqew-9sek1". That'll give you a $20 discount on your purchase.

Onkyo TX-NR900 Photo

Basically and ethernet port on the back of a receiver. Using THEIR software, you can connect to 'Internet Radio' ( shoutcast and such ), as well as local mp3/WMA shares.

Nothing new here...

Looks like it's time to build that MP3 player with the big hard drive for my new Saturn. Damn it, someone beat me to the buzzer. It even has WiFi capability!

Actually, I'll agree with that. For myself I bought the Denon DVD-2900 which came it at just around $1100. I use this to it's fullest (DVD A/V, SACD, MP3, etc.), but for my parents they have my original Pioneer DV-525 that I bought over 5 years ago and they are perfectly happy with it.

The best thing about a good reciever is that you don't have to do your nine button thing to watch a DVD.

1. Plug your TV into a switched outlet on the back of the reciever. At this point you never use your tv remote again. The TV is basically a monitor and it turns on and off with the reciver.
2. Plug each of your players into an input on the reciever.
3. The reciever comes with a learning remote. Program it for each of your devices.

1. Power on the reciever, the tv turns on.
2. Put the remote into DVD mode
3. Switch the reciever input to DVD
4. Press play

Why is this modded funny? There really is a monster brand of battery.

You should give Crutchfield a try, they have great service, and a great selection of Car Stereo equipment. There are many head units that have AUX In these days, i have a great Panasonic head unit that i bought in 2000, and it has AUX In on the back. If you don't feel like digging through their website, just give them a call on the phone, their sales people know the products very well and can reccomend something for you and your car.

Some people figure out ways to hack an aux-in from the cd-changer interface, but it seems so trivial for manufacturers to provide this, I don't know why all of them don't.

But unfortunatly all Sony portable "mp3 players" are not really MP3 players. They all require you to re-encode the files into Sony's proprietary, DRM locked format, ATRAC3. And you have to use their crappy software too. And files must be checked in and checked out so you can't have them on more than one device at a time.
No thanks, Sony.

To think, wireless HDTV! That would be like - like getting HDTV over the air! You would just need an antenna, maybe a fancy converter box. Who could think it possible? Wouldn't it be cool if they could do multiple channels at the same time? *sigh* Jeff

For someone who used to work for a digital music company, you seem surprisingly uninformed about how this product actually works.

The files that Apple is offering are bog-standard MPEG-4 Audio files. You can burn them to CD and play them on any machine which speaks the AAC codec. No, AAC is not yet as widely supported as MP3, but it's getting there: there are free-as-in-free implementations available. Winamp and XMMS will already both play AAC/MP4 files.

No, not too many DVD players will play them, but that has nothing to do with any DRM "padlock", it's just that not many players bundle the codec yet. Given the intense interest that every hardware manufacturer has evidenced in MPEG-4, that can safely be expected to change sooner rather than later.

Likewise, the files will play on any portable player that supports AAC decoding. That's not just the iPod and yes, you can get all-solid-stateplayers that support it. Today.

Would it have killed you to research this a little bit, rather than spouting a barely-concealed advertisement for your former employer's service?

Don't bother with the cables and charging the batteries and all the rest of the hassle.

Just get an mp3 car unit

I bought a Pioneer DEH-7400MP MP3 CD player and I love it. It was about $300 and had free installation. It's a no-brainer to burn a ton of MP3 music onto a CD-R. I usually use fairly large VBR files and I can fit 100 tracks on a CD no sweat. It has an organic EL display with interesting little canned videos, but of more practical importance, it can display the directory name, file name, ID3 track or artist name in ascii.

I bought it about a year ago. Now the units are getting cheaper. Browse through crutchfield because you can easily see what is available and what it costs. Look under:

Car Audio and Video CD, MP3 & DVD Receivers CD/MP3 Receivers

You can probably get something installed in your car for under $200. You might want to double check that the unit you buy shows the id3 information because some don't.

Oh yeah, if your friend likes the music you're playing, you can just give away the CD and burn another one later.

Maybe you should just buy one of these instead:

Sony DVP-CX875P 300+1 DVD/CD mega changer with progressive scan

HELL YEAH!

That's what i've been saying for a while. Then Panasonic came out with this puppy :)

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

That may be correct, but you're not seeing the full picture. (horrible pun is, indeed, intended)

A 19" non-HD TV will only set you back, what, $150? Maybe even just $120? A decent 19" monitor is about $200, now. That's not too far off in terms of price. But picture quality is *way* off.

That's not to say that your TV can't be a good computer monitor, however. The primary reason your TV looks like crap when you display anything from a computer on it is due to the way the signal is transferred from your video card to the TV. A standard TV's inputs were really only designed for large moving objects over a bandwidth-limited medium such as a multiplexed cable line or over-the-air broadcasts. Because of this, the overall bandwidth requirement is comparatively low. Small text is blurred because the signal going to your TV doesn't carry enough bandwidth to make a change on the scan-line quickly enough to make it as sharp as you'd like it. That's also the reason that you're generally only limited to 640x480 or so even though your video card is capable of so much more.

Your 19" computer monitor, on the other hand, has an input capable of carrying a single dot on a grid of 1600x1200 that's still very discernable. That's a lot of information wizzing through that 15-pin cable. But when you consider that the 15-pin connector is really a slightly more complex version of the 3-cable component video inputs on most HDTVs and almost all DVD players, it isn't difficult to understand why this is the case. If you can separate the signal such that each conductor only carries a portion of the signal (and some error-correcting stuff that will vary depending on what signal you're sending), you effectively gain potential resolution. On the typical 15-pin connector, there's a separate signal for each of red, green, and blue picture elements. There's also a grounding wire for each signal. There's synchronization signals on 2 or more wires with their own grounding wires, too.

The input on a non-HD TV must make due with only a single conductor and a single ground for *all* of this information. The RF input is even worse as it's carrying multiple channels of data multiplexed with the one that you really want. An HDTV uses either the 15-pin connector like that found on computer monitors or the 3-cable RCA connector common on most DVD players. (The 3-cable setup carries RGB on their own conductor with the HSync and VSync multiplexed across them. The other method multiplexes all of the signal and sync data across all three conductors. There's only 3 ground conductors in each method, those being the shielding on the cables) This makes the HDTV, effectively, a large computer monitor. The problem isn't with the quality of the tube, but rather the maximum ammount of information that can be transmitted to it. If you were able to bypass the traditional inputs on your typical TV set and send your signal *directly* to the picture tube, you'd get a picture that's similar to what you can get on your computer monitor. (BTW: Don't try that at home, kids. TVs and computer monitors have lots of high-voltage components in them that can kill you if you're not careful. Leave the insides of your TV alone.)

Some newer HDTV-ready units are already doubling as computer monitors at about $3500 and will easily display your computer signal at about 800x600. As for a large TV-only unit, a decent unit will run about $4k. Granted, that's much higher than you'd find a good computer monitor for, but you're not really going to be able to find a 50-plus inch monitor for anywhere close to that price. In addition, you've got inputs for your X-Box, Playstation2, progressive-scan DVD player, an HDTV satellite receiver, and anything else you want to throw at it. Your PC would be only one element in a home-entertainment package.

Back on topic, HDTV programming is still rather sparse for my taste. I'm on DirecTV and can only get a few channels with HDTV resolution. HBO has some content, and there's at least one PPV channel dedicated to it. But I'm waiting until there's more HDTV content from the more "regular" channels, such as Discovery Channel (currently in HD, but only for Dish Networks customers) and Speed Channel. The major network affiliates such as NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, etc., don't have enough HD content available for me to justify an $800 purchase. My HDTV-ready big-screen will need to get by on 480p signals from my DVD player until I think there's enough HDTV content to buy that box.

OK, but you'd better make sure that every component in your system, (from the D/A converter all the way to the speakers) has a frequency response of 0-48kHz if you want to hear everything that's on your DVD-Audio disc, or 0-100kHz for a SACD (according to this article). Even the Polk LSi9's - at $900 a pair - top out at 26kHz, and most people's stereos can't do much over 20kHz. I would bet, however, that you're average consumer isn't going to go out and buy a whole new audio system just to listen to SACDs or DVD-Audio discs, and therefore won't be able to hear all that much difference.

Also, the equipment used to record your violin would also have to have the same frequency response as the SACD or DVD-A you're recording for, which probably means more upgrading, at least for smaller studios.

Check around freshmeat, there are tons of free players/jukeboxes what have you, and some of them are controllable by joystick, which would solve the not seeing the buttons part. (xmms does that also I believe)

As for a standalone player, I've seen MP3 and MP3CD players all over, but ogg is still a little undeveloped in the consumer world I think (someone's gonna come and correct me w/ some links to ogg players, that's fine, but there are still many more MP3 players). I think a small linux client would be best, even w/o X11, just get some sort of remote control such as a joystick or IR and don't even mess with the TV...unless of course you really wanna watch discotux, which I think is one of the coolest things in xmms :)

One thing I was personally thinking of doing sometime was a music server in my car, I'd get a UPS, plug it into a power-inverter, and build a small machine, say Pentium 90Mhzish, then I'd throw a 60 or 80gig hard drive on there and wire it;s sound card output to an AUX in on my receiver..... still a dream at this point, and not too economically friendly when you realize that you can get a kenwood 10-MP3CD changer (100 hours of music is enough for driving around right?)from crutchfield for about the same price...

Here is a pioneer car stereo with an OLED panel.

They have a car version. Sony MEX-1HD .

These are becoming more mainstream.

For instance, Pioneer has one too.

However, I think cd players that play MP3's off CD-R/CD-RW's are a much better deal

They cost LOTS less, they hold "enough" music, and if the media dies, it costs 20 cents to replace it.

These are becoming more mainstream.

For instance, Pioneer has one too.

However, I think cd players that play MP3's off CD-R/CD-RW's are a much better deal

They cost LOTS less, they hold "enough" music, and if the media dies, it costs 20 cents to replace it.

I think the concept of the player is great - but why on EARTH is there a disc tray that ejects from the front?!?! This picture shows the tray, I would have *much* preferred a front-loading mechanism like on their bottom-of-the-line model.
Bad Sony. No cookie.

I think the concept of the player is great - but why on EARTH is there a disc tray that ejects from the front?!?! This picture shows the tray, I would have *much* preferred a front-loading mechanism like on their bottom-of-the-line model.
Bad Sony. No cookie.

The MiniDisc is not so mini, and it requires lossy compression to store a full album.

Hmmm, it uses a form of compression called ATRAC. It compresses at 4:1, so the 175MB MiniDisc can hold a full 80 minutes of music. ATRAC is less compression than mp3, with higher sound quality. (I am very picky about such things as my speakers and headphones, and I can't tell the difference between an original CD and a digitally transferred MD. I can certainly identify an mp3, though, even encoded at 320kbps.) Newer MD recorders/players even offer the option to record at higher compression, so you can fit more for slightly worse quality (haven't listened to it, so I can't comment on it.) Remember, lossy does not always equal crap. A jpeg at maximum quality is almost indistinguishable from an uncompressed file, yet is significantly smaller.

I've never seen a non-Sony MD player. Is the technology licensed to any other companies?

Well, since your first statement makes it obvious that you are biased against MD, you would have no reason to take notice, would you? While MD has been waning in the U.S. for a copule years, it is still VERY popular in Europe and Asia (where people understand that a 2.5" hard-shelled disc is vastly superior to a 12cm easily scratched medium.) In the U.S., MD seemed to have its heyday between 3 and 5 years ago. At that point, I remember seeing models (portable, mini-system, component, and car) from Sharp, Aiwa, Sony, JVC, Pioneer, Blaupunkt, and Kenwood. I currently, or have in the past, owned models from Sony, Sharp, JVC, and Pioneer. All purchased in the U.S. from major retailers, not specialty import electronics stores. Currently, Crutchfield has 20 models from 4 different manufacturers. And, according to the 'fan' site, MiniDisc.org, all major Japanese manufacturers currently make MD recorders/players for sale in Japan.

I kicked the MP3 jukebox idea around for a while last time I installed a car stereo. The best solution I could find were the Aiwa car stereos that provide a mini stereo line in jack. I think that the input on these head units were unique in the low- to mid-price range. Another alternative is the MP3-CD players, which also feature a line in.

I kicked the MP3 jukebox idea around for a while last time I installed a car stereo. The best solution I could find were the Aiwa car stereos that provide a mini stereo line in jack. I think that the input on these head units were unique in the low- to mid-price range. Another alternative is the MP3-CD players, which also feature a line in.

I'm an amazing idiot, I meant to say sirius not xm....

I had an XM reciever similar to this one. It was ok but i wanted the mp3 CD capability. Don't let my stupidity belittle my recommendation, still go with the Kenwood, its sweet.

there are several in-dash MP3 players that also support sirius and xm.

check out these:

Alpine 7897 (XM ready)

Kenwood Excelon KDC-X659 (sirius ready)

There's actually a bunch. Check Crutchfield....

there are several in-dash MP3 players that also support sirius and xm.

check out these:

Alpine 7897 (XM ready)

Kenwood Excelon KDC-X659 (sirius ready)

There's actually a bunch. Check Crutchfield....

there are several in-dash MP3 players that also support sirius and xm.

check out these:

Alpine 7897 (XM ready)

Kenwood Excelon KDC-X659 (sirius ready)

There's actually a bunch. Check Crutchfield....

you might want to also look into the price on recievers. do all recievers support sirus and XM? if not, which are cheaper? Check Crutchfield for prices on recievers.

For only $500 at crutchfield you can get a sony 300 disc dvd changer. It doesn't have the geek factor you want, but it works, and you never have to swap out discs.

I've been looking at doing this lately with my PJB-100. In the past, I've tried both the cassette adapter and an FM modulator that goes between the antenna jack on the back of the head unit and the antenna lead. It's more direct than broadcasting over-the-air, and the sound is ok. But honest, the cassette adapters give you the best sound, and are simpler than the FM modulator (which has to be wired into the dash) or FM transmitter (which takes batteries).

If you're going to be using the MP3 as your main music source, check out new head units from Jensen and Aiwa that have front-panel 1/8" Aux inputs. The cheapest Jensen is $120 at Crutchfield.

The best solution it seems is to get a car stereo with an aux input. I noticed several at Crutchfield. Then you can use just about any device (iPod, laptop, old tape player, etc...). The only drawback is having to buy a new car stereo...

Sounds like my experience...

I, too, went for the spendy bose headphones as a last resort. They work great. My only complaints: because these are rather well sealed units, after a while my ears get sweaty (but they are still very comfortable). Also, the external amplifier/battery box is cumbersome -- it sometimes falls off my desk, yanking the cord to my head.

With the bose, some noise still gets through, but I'm always amazed when I take them off how loud my computer really is. The sound quality is good, but the amplifier injecting noise (as it is designed to do!), I don't think any noise canceling headphones can compete with a decent pair of studio-type headphones and a quiet room.

I also tried two Sony headphones from crutchfield:
MDR-NC5, $99 - Not a closed-ear type, so the noise reduction wasn't that great.
MDR-NC20, $150 - This has a closed construction, but the noise reduction didn't seem to work too well - the headphones added quite a bit of their own white noise.

Better yet ask why no one has ever marketed a VCR that edits out the commercials.

They have, the feature is called Commercial Advance and it's the same tech used in the Reply 4000 series. Here is just one VCR that has it, for the princely sum of $120.

Yeah that is crazy! I mean, nobody makes car stereos with MP3 playback. The very idea of it is ludicrous. And don't even *think* about portable players. Bah!

Where have you been, man? Do you have a 12 disc changer in your car? I do, but they all fit on one CDR. Just keep futzing with all those CDs... or LPs if you prefer.

Yeah that is crazy! I mean, nobody makes car stereos with MP3 playback. The very idea of it is ludicrous. And don't even *think* about portable players. Bah!

Where have you been, man? Do you have a 12 disc changer in your car? I do, but they all fit on one CDR. Just keep futzing with all those CDs... or LPs if you prefer.

To all of you touting how XM is "commercial-free" take a look at the disclaimer on xmradio.com's sample page:

Following is a sortable list of XM Satellite Radio's channels. You'll also find an option to listen to XM programming samples. (Although all of our samples are commercial-free, some of the actual channels may carry minimal advertising.)

Interesting -- so where's the benefit again? Incidentally, crutchfield is already selling the XM recievers and add-ons Here

~arbitrary

So in addition to the expense, you have the issue of dealing with a magnetic roof-mount antenna or gluing one to the inside of your windows. Further impediment to aftermarket sales.

So you're looking at hard disks just because they're sealed? Yet you're having trouble finding an affordable drive that can stand the shock. I would think it would be easier to find a CD drive for rough conditions than a hard drive. True, CD drives aren't sealed, but you can put them in a dustproof enclosure. Get something with fat buffers so skipping won't be a big issue. That just leaves you with the problem of finding a device sturdy enough, but you've got that anyway.

But it sounds to me like you need a system that doesn't have anymoving parts. This MMC-based system (or your home-hacked alternative) would seem to fit the bill. Yeah, MMC cards are horrendously expensive compared to hard disks. But if you're budgeting, say, $200 for your storage medium, you can afford 256MB of storage. Puny by today's standards, but still enough to hold several hours of music.

I haven't heard of a DVD player which will read both sides of a double sided DVD...

Here is one. Clever design, it's a 300 disc carousel with the drive inside the hub. Normally it sucks the disc in from the front, but if you hit the "flip" button on the remote it'll spit the disc back into the carousel, spin the tray 180 degrees, then suck the same disc in from the back.

I also have a Panasonic combo LD/DVD player that can move the read head from one side of the platter to the other.

...nor have I heard of double sided DVD's being used for a single version of a movie... I've only seen double sided used for widescreen/regular view versions of a movie so you don't have to flip it.

Yeah, same here. Too bad, given my gear I'd much rather have one double-sided disc taking up one slot than two single-siders.