clap clap clap clap clap
(was too lazy to find a clapping emote.)

Hey, Murph's got the claps!

I recognize that I may be wrong or in the minority on this, but I like the slave M3 idea an awful lot, especially since it would make the overall system cheaper. The second speaker would always need SOME kind of cord (either a power cord or a speaker cable). So, the only thing that the extra cost buys you is plugging it into a wall outlet instead of into the other (master) speaker.

If you used regular speaker wire from the "master" AirPlay M3, a slave M3 could be an existing M3, correct?

I'd much rather not have to string more speaker wire. Here's the thing about power: the really ugly stuff is already in the wall. You could even put some outlets high up in the wall.

Then again, I guess if you were going to that trouble, you could just run speaker cable behind the wall.

Please ignore the crazy guy arguing with himself.

Peter, that's what I was thinking.

Ken, that's what I was thinking.

There is also the drop in power per channel from 150 watts to 75 watts when using a slave speaker as opposed to two active ones. A regular M3 would be perfect for the slave.

Maybe one switch for Left - Right - Mono

and one switch for External amplifier On - Off

Use the first switch to also designate which channel content to send to the slave.

I think there might be a really good market segment that would buy surrounds with this tech.......

Some nice discrete and paintable, flat power cords would be nice as well.

The problem with that, Mike, is that the Airplay protocol itself doesn't really support surround speakers; it takes stereo output from computers or mobile devices and transmits that.