"harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LUAGi.29464$ka7.21918@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Tim" <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote in message
> news:46ead764$0$654$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> > harrogate3 wrote:
> > > I have an application where I need to be able to send audio from A
> to
> > > B about 40 miles apart. There is no audio circuit between the
> sites
> > > but there is a (fairly) high capacity data circuit.
> > >
> >
> > I would use a pair of Snom370s and connect to the headset ports to
> get
> > your audio.
> >
> > Reason for this is that Snom370 support G.722 wide band audio, so
> will
> > give you the best audio quality.
> >
> > I can't think of a better way of doing it without buying broadcast
> sound
> > style encoders and decoders. Mega bucks.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
> Thanks for the reply gents, but I suspect you have misunderstood my
> requirement. I very specifically do NOT want any form of dial-up
> circuit. The line must be end-to-end permanently open - just like a BT
> private wire which would cost a fortune. Presentation should ideally
> be 600R floating or balanced.
if you have PBXes (or the IP equivalent) then you may be able to program a
fixed link between them - cost approx zero....
"real" IP audio codecs are not cheap (for some definition of cheap of
course) - these are usually stereo (at least) and 15 or 22 KHz audio
channel.
They also tend to eat bandwidth, so you should check how much you are
willing to use.
as an example, you are going to need 400 Kbps+ to get 16 bit sampled stereo
using enhanced APTX compression (which is what a lot of radio broadcasters
seem to use)
www.broadcom.co.uk is 1 source we have used.
if codecs are a bit steep then esp if you have a typical corporate network,
some cisco router models can take analog speech interfaces - set them up to
do point to point permanent G.711 and you get 3.5 Hkz / 8 bit sampled sound
this could still run out several £100 when you add voice grade feature upgra
des for the routers, voice interfaces and DSPs - but 2nd and more channels
will be cheaper.....
>
> I suppose I really need some form of single line mux.
>
>
> --
> Woody
>
> harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
--
Regards
stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl