I am trying to send audio from a microphone such as this over Ethernet to a computer. My first idea was to connect the mic to an arduino's ADC and send the data using an ethernet module such as the ENC28J60 but some people say that the micro controller can only send about 5kb/s.

Has anyone tried a similar setup where raw data is sent from an analog pin and measured the throughput?

(any ideas on a better way to send the data are also welcome)

  • \$\begingroup\$ What audio quality do you need, what will it be used for? There is a huge difference between CD-quality (16 bits @ 44.100 kHz) and telephony (8 bits @ 8 kHz). For a simple microphone and Arduino setup like you describe, the latter will be the most viable of the two. \$\endgroup\$
    – jippie
    Nov 10, 2012 at 8:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ As the Arduino's ATMEGA328 has neither a fast enough ADC nor a built in Ethernet MAC nor sufficient memory to make the task easy, it seems like a very poor choice compared to alternative which have all 3. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 10, 2012 at 18:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton do you know any alternatives that are through-hole or come on a board? \$\endgroup\$
    – Navin
    Nov 10, 2012 at 22:27

3 Answers 3


Before I get into details, let me say that I have probably designed more professional-audio over Ethernet hardware than anyone else-- both in terms of number of different PCB designs as well as number of PCBs manufactured and shipped to end customers. Odds are very high that you have heard products where I have designed the audio over ethernet circuitry in them. (This is pro-audio only, and does not include VOIP or other non-pro products.)

Let's start with the issues:

Software: The hardware is honestly the easy part. The software is difficult. The closer you want to pro-audio performance the harder it is. Your application doesn't sound like pro-audio, but the software task is still not trivial.

Audio Clocking: Transmitting the audio data from point A to point B is relatively easy. Doing it in a way that the two devices have a synchronized audio clock is difficult. Non-pro applications solve this by doing sample rate conversion or just simple drop/duplicate samples as the audio clocks drift. There are difficulties and side effects of both of these, which increases the software difficulty immensely. Just saving the data to a file on the PC side of things is easy-- using it in a real-time way is hard.

Low-latency: How long it takes the audio to go from the Mic, over the network to the PC, and then used by the PC is called latency. The shorter the latency the harder things are. Just saving audio data to a file is a good example of super-long latency, and is one reason why that is also the easiest thing to do. A latency of <2.5 mS is damn hard to do correctly an robustly. The shorter the latency, the less issues there are with things like audio echo and stuff.

Bandwidth: Sending telephone quality audio with high latency is the easiest. Pro-audio quality with low latency is super hard. Using the mic, MCU, and Ethernet interface that you proposed is going to put you into the telephone quality side of things. There are many cases where raw bits-per-second of the Ethernet interface is not the only problem. Other issues like IRQ rate, packet transmit/receive time (not just overall bandwidth), and sometimes packet timing are super important.

Network Topology: As the audio quality goes up (and latency goes down) your network topology becomes really important. I am talking about the number of Ethernet switches, the type of switches, how they are connected, and the number/type of non-audio ethernet devices also on the network. For you this probably wouldn't be an issue, but you never know.

I think that your proposed solution would work for telephone audio quality with a high latency. You'll probably have to do sample dropping/repeating to deal with non-synchronized audio clocks. And it won't be all that great. You might be quite underwhelmed by the audio. I also think that you'll have a lot of software to write on the PC side of things. That being said, I would not do the project with that.

If I were doing the project, I would look at one of the new-ish ARM Cortex-M3 or M4 devices by TI or Freescale that includes a 100 mbps or gigabit ethernet controllers. Many of these things are less than US$10 each and can run at up to 100 MHz. The amount of RAM and Flash makes the task of writing software much easier.

For amusement, my current Audio Over Ethernet project uses an 800 MHz ARM Cortex-A8 with dual gigabit Ethernet ports and runs a customized version of Linux. The system as a whole (not just this Cortex-A8 device) can handle over 2048 audio channels at 48KHz, 32 bit, with an overall system latency of just 2.5 mS (including ADC, DAC, two times over the network, and lots of processing). Audio devices on the network have their sample clocks sync'd to less than 1 uS, even if there are 8+ switch hops in the middle.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think most of that would be overkill for my project. I am not concerned about clock synchronizing or latency (the delay can be as large as a few seconds!). Of cource lower latency is still better. My main reason for not using an arm cortex or similar is that the demo boards are hundreds of dollars. Do you know any that are cheaper and have ethernet? \$\endgroup\$
    – Navin
    Nov 10, 2012 at 22:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Navin You must be concerned with clock sync or some sort of sample rate conversion. There is no way around it. TI has many affordable dev boards. Here's one that has a Cortex-M3 with 10/100 Ethernet and a small OLED display for US$69! ti.com/tool/eks-lm3s6965 \$\endgroup\$
    – user3624
    Nov 10, 2012 at 23:56

If you are worried about bandwidth, you should use a micro with the MAC/PHY built in instead of external connected via SPI as the ENC28J60 is. My network stack supports both the ENC28J60 and the internal MAC/PHY of some PIC 18 like the 18F67J60, and there is a clear difference in speed when data has to be handled by the micro.

Ethernet at 10 Mbit/s is way more than needed for even good quality audio. 16 bit samples at 44 kHz is 704 kbit/s, for example. If you just want voice quality it can be much lower. 12 bit samples at 10 kHz is only 120 kbit/s, for example, and that's very good voice quality.

The bottleneck will be in handling the data in the micro. 10 kHz sample rate is one sample every 100 µs, which is every 1000 instructions for a processor running at 10 MHz instruction rate. That's quite a lot.

You said "ethernet", but not what kind of protocol you want to use. If you plan to send raw ethernet packets with a private protocol ID or something, then there isn't much overhead especially since you're only sending and if the MAC/PHY is built into the processor. In that case this is easily doable from the numbers above.

It gets more complicated if you want to use a standard network protocol. If you do, this will be where most of the cycles go and it will therefore be the limit on data rate. For streaming audio, I would use UDP since it's a lot simpler than TCP and doesn't require reception, ACKs, and the like.

I have a project in the works where the small embedded system needs to receive streaming voice-quality audio, among other things. I plan on using UDP for the streaming audio. I have a 18F67J60 running a full network stack since this unit will communicate over TCP also for other purposes. The reception of UDP packets is fairly simple, so I think can handle the bandwidth. Any micro handling a network stack is usually not good for low latency real time processing, so I dedicated a separate micro to receiving the streaming audio data from the network processor via SPI on the same board. This processor will use most of its RAM as a samples buffer. The data from the network processor will come in bursts, but it must be written out at a steady rate. I probably won't get to implementing the streaming audio part of this project for a month or two, so can't tell you now how well this worked.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I have to use a standard protocol such as UDP because there will be a wireless router between the ethernet endpoints. The reason I am not using a micro with built in ethernet is that they are either SMD or the boards that they come on are too expensive. The cheapest board I could find that has an ADC and ethernet is the iMX233-OLinuXino-MAXI but that is an entire computer and is overkill for my project. Do you know any cheaper boards? \$\endgroup\$
    – Navin
    Nov 10, 2012 at 22:39

I have used Arduino's at 115200 Bd in the past on the serial port, but I stopped doing that because every so often I received bit errors. Maybe an original Arduino performs better than my el cheapo Chinese replicas, but I can't give you any guarantee there. I think this is where the 5kByte/s rule of thumb comes from.

I have no idea about the performance of the Ethernet shields, it probably depends on the shield and Arduino's processing power. If all you want is to transcode an audio signal to serial digital signal, that shouldn't be much of an issue for the processor.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.