At 20.25 2011.11.15, you wrote: >On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 13:45 -0500, V G wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Electron wrot= e: >>=20 >> > There are many bluetooth modules that go beyond 2Mbit/s, and they even= have >> > an (extra?) audio interface, as someone already suggested. Perhaps thi= s >> > will >> > be the cheapest route to follow, and pretty simple. >>=20 >>=20 >> Could you please suggest some specific ones? I need to be able to do poi= nt >> to point pairing (not with a host computer) so I can create a transmitte= r >> AND receiver module so that the output can be connected to a standalone = amp. > >I gotta ask: considering your sensitivity to latency, I don't think any >digital solution is liable to be acceptable unless you design it >yourself from the ground up. Have you not considered an analog solution? > >Tons of options out there, from home brew to commercial. While digital >has some benefits, unless you're worried about using it on stage with >50,000 people listening I don't think a digital solution gives you ANY >benefit, ESPECIALLY considering the range. > >Sometimes simpler solutions are better. Only sometimes? :o :-) --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .