[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 13, 6:25 am, mrgou wrote:

the Zoom H2
wondering how well handling noise is isolated. In such an "all-in-one"
device, I'd hate to hear every single movement on the unit in the
recording.

The unit itself has no moving parts other than the buttons. You'll
hear an initial click when you start recording and one when when you
stop, but other than that, there's no mechanical noise at all other
than what you yourself create. Of course if you fidget and fondle it
you'll hear your hand noise. The mics aren't excessively shock
mounted, just enough to protect them if you drop it.l

It comes with a sort of handle, tapered like an SM-57, that can fit in
a mic stand clip, or you can hold it by that handle to get yourself a
little further away from the mics and case while you're recording. It
also has a camera tripod socket. You might find that a monopod works
well for what you'll be doing. It will help to hold the recorder at a
fixed height and keep your hands away from it (because you'll be
holding the pole). And since the recorder is very light, you can do
with a light duty monopod that won't add a lot of bulk to your kit.

[Sigurd Stenersen]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote
And you didn't say what sorts of sounds you were recording... Animals?
Actors? (According to Max Bialystock, there's no difference.)

Oh yeah ? Have you ever *eaten* with one ?


Sigurd

[mrgou[_2_]]

Hi,

Considering all your advice, I will get a Zoom H2 or even an H4 if it's
worth the difference between both.

I'll go with the Edirol and microphones later when I've had a bit more
experience. I'll remember the NT1-A for recording settings where I can
keep it standing, and a dynamic mic, possibly from Shure, whenever I
need something lighter and more robust that I can easily carry around.

Thanks to all of you for your recommendations!

Raphael

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On 11 Jan 2009 14:49:41 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

mrgou wrote:

What I'm really trying to do is to record natural sounds, from trickling
waters to singing birds to the sound of wind, rain and thunder, as well
as urban sounds (people, cars...). I'm likely to record voice as
background sound rather than in an interview setting. I would be
recording on a digital recorder such as the Edirol R-44.

This is a very, very difficult thing to do. And the reason it is difficult
is because the difference between the loud sounds and the soft sounds in
the environment is very great. In addition, reproducing a convincing stereo
imaging of anything is difficult.

You may want to do as William Sommerweck suggested, and use a
stereo pair. There are several microphone configurations used to
produce a stereo signal, most all discussed in r.a.p and elsewhere
over the years. Google these:
x-y micing
coincident pair micing
spaced pair micing

And then there's binaural recording, if you don't mind carrying
around a head-sized and shaped artifact with the mics inside it:
http://www.binaural.com/binfaq.html

This may give as decent a stereo image as some of the other techniques
on a pair of loudspeakers, but as the demos will demonstrate, it
sounds best when listening through headphones. Check the demos and see
if that's the result you want, and if you're willing to do what it
takes to get it.


As I'm really starting, I'm looking for a multi-purpose,
omnidirectional, dynamic microphone. I could buy other mics later, such
as a directional one, like a photographer has several objectives. I'd
rather avoid going above 250$/€ unless it's really worth it.

Why necessarily a dynamic microphone?

i want to do this as a hobby, so I'm not looking for production-level
quality. With the recorder included, I'm aiming at a ~1,000€ budget.
Like other people take photographs of what they see surrounding them, I
want to capture the sounds. I first started with a minidisc recorder and
an Sony ECM-DP70S, with interesting but disappointing results, so I now
want to take it to the next level!

The next level is probably going to be something like the Avenson or
Earthworks omnis. A-T also makes an inexpensive omni condenser mike.
It is not horrible.
--scott

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On 12 Jan 2009 10:45:15 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

mrgou wrote:

OK, so if I hear what you're saying, and based on Scott's comment on
the power requirements, you would recommend an NT1-A over a dynamic
mic, which I thought was generally recommended for field recording?
And it's definitely within budget!

I wouldn't take an NT1 into a rainforest, and I wouldn't run over it
with a truck. But short of those sort of things (which field recordists
will eventually encounter), you will be fine.

I don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.
--scott

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be? And
please don't say Brownian motion of the air molecules, because that
isn't microphone noise, it is an external signal the microphone
responds to just like any other.

d

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be?

A very high resistance shunted by a capacitance.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:12:38 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be?

A very high resistance shunted by a capacitance.

Exactly - not the capacitance itself, which I replaced by a
non-microphonic alternative. The capsule in a non-moving state is
purely reactive, and therefore can't be a source of energy. It is only
when it moves that it can impart some energy to the amplifier, and it
only moves in response to a stimulus - in other words an external
source of noise or vibration. It has no self-noise, that is purely
down to the electronics.

d

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:12:38 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be?

A very high resistance shunted by a capacitance.

Exactly - not the capacitance itself, which I replaced by a
non-microphonic alternative. The capsule in a non-moving state is
purely reactive, and therefore can't be a source of energy. It is only
when it moves that it can impart some energy to the amplifier, and it
only moves in response to a stimulus - in other words an external
source of noise or vibration. It has no self-noise, that is purely
down to the electronics.

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.

As soon as you connect it to a practical circuit with a real resistance,
there will be Johnson noise (with a spectrum which falls at 6 dB per
octave) . So do you then count the input resistance noise as part of
the amplifier or part of the capsule?

It is possible to reduce the noise contribution of the shunt resistance
by making it part of a feedback loop. I have used this system to good
effect (noise figures around 1dB or better) with lower impedance
pre-amplifiers, but have never tried it with a capacitor capsule.

Picking up a point which I don't think has been mentioned yet: Even
with the best pre-amplifiers, many types of moving coil mic are noisy
because of the Johnson noise inherent in the resistive component of the
coil. There is nothing the user can do to reduce the noise level any
further, unless they are prepared to fake the figures by limiting the
measurement bandwidth.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Keith. wrote:

"mrgou" wrote in message
...

[...]
Recording a thunderstorm and then replaying it satisfactorily is probably
the hardest thing to do in audio recording. The extreme frequency/dynamic
range of the storm is almost impossible to reproduce.

Do you stand near a building and risk distorting the sound field with
reflection and diffraction effects - or do you stand alone on the
hilltop and receive a posthumous award for the best recording of the
year?


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:32:29 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:12:38 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be?

A very high resistance shunted by a capacitance.

Exactly - not the capacitance itself, which I replaced by a
non-microphonic alternative. The capsule in a non-moving state is
purely reactive, and therefore can't be a source of energy. It is only
when it moves that it can impart some energy to the amplifier, and it
only moves in response to a stimulus - in other words an external
source of noise or vibration. It has no self-noise, that is purely
down to the electronics.

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive. Any residual resistive
component it may have is well shunted by the capacitor, and can be
discounted.

As soon as you connect it to a practical circuit with a real resistance,
there will be Johnson noise (with a spectrum which falls at 6 dB per
octave) . So do you then count the input resistance noise as part of
the amplifier or part of the capsule?

Johnson noise comes from the bias resistor, which is you say is
shunted at 6dB per octave by the capacitance of the capsule. My test
left all of that in place.

It is possible to reduce the noise contribution of the shunt resistance
by making it part of a feedback loop. I have used this system to good
effect (noise figures around 1dB or better) with lower impedance
pre-amplifiers, but have never tried it with a capacitor capsule.

You can't feed back all the way to the acoustic coupling, so it
doesn't apply in this case.

Picking up a point which I don't think has been mentioned yet: Even
with the best pre-amplifiers, many types of moving coil mic are noisy
because of the Johnson noise inherent in the resistive component of the
coil. There is nothing the user can do to reduce the noise level any
further, unless they are prepared to fake the figures by limiting the
measurement bandwidth.

Precisely my point. The 4-and-a-bit dB noise level I measured was the
sum of all the electronic noises - Johnson, shot etc.

Anything that results from the diaphragm being moved by air molecules
isn't microphone noise - it is external noise, and for the purpose of
this measurement must be considered valid signal.

d

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:32:29 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:12:38 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.
--scott

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be?

A very high resistance shunted by a capacitance.

Exactly - not the capacitance itself, which I replaced by a
non-microphonic alternative. The capsule in a non-moving state is
purely reactive, and therefore can't be a source of energy. It is only
when it moves that it can impart some energy to the amplifier, and it
only moves in response to a stimulus - in other words an external
source of noise or vibration. It has no self-noise, that is purely
down to the electronics.

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive.

I was being purist. No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

...Any residual resistive
component it may have is well shunted by the capacitor, and can be
discounted.

That was the point I was trying to make - but it is still a good idea to
be aware of what you are discounting and why; otherwise, one day, it
will creep up from behind and bite you

[...]
It is possible to reduce the noise contribution of the shunt resistance
by making it part of a feedback loop. I have used this system to good
effect (noise figures around 1dB or better) with lower impedance
pre-amplifiers, but have never tried it with a capacitor capsule.

You can't feed back all the way to the acoustic coupling, so it
doesn't apply in this case.

I believe there have been attempts to do almost that (restoring the
diaphragm position by using an electronically-generated force), but no
practical equipment has yet come onto the market.


Anything that results from the diaphragm being moved by air molecules
isn't microphone noise - it is external noise, and for the purpose of
this measurement must be considered valid signal.

That's fair enough. I have heard of microphone tests being conducted in
a vacuum in order to give the most accurate results. (Not to be confused
with the hydrogen pistonphone fiasco that was hushed-up by Victor/HMV in
the late 1920s)


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Scott Dorsey]

In article 4976eb4e.436215546@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be? And
please don't say Brownian motion of the air molecules, because that
isn't microphone noise, it is an external signal the microphone
responds to just like any other.

Yes, on a typical microphone today, Brownian noise is the main noise source.
The air is part of the capsule... you don't use it in a vacuum, you use it
with air in it, so you have to measure it with air in it.

Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. Blame the folks at the ISO.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:16:12 +0000,
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive.

I was being purist. No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

Remember the residual - huge - resistance of the capsule is in
parallel with the bias resistor, which is orders of magnitude bigger.

d

[Don Pearce[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:51:45 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:16:12 +0000,
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive.

I was being purist. No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

Remember the residual - huge - resistance of the capsule is in
parallel with the bias resistor, which is orders of magnitude bigger.

d

Bugger - I meant smaller, of course. (Just got back from the dentist
is my excuse!)

d

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:51:45 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:16:12 +0000,
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson theory,
it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source which is is
capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces zero voltage
across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive.

I was being purist. No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

Remember the residual - huge - resistance of the capsule is in
parallel with the bias resistor, which is orders of magnitude bigger.

d

Bugger - I meant smaller, of course. (Just got back from the dentist
is my excuse!)

....and you are looking a bit down in the mouth? :-)


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[hank alrich]

Adrian Tuddenham wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:51:45 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:16:12 +0000,
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

It has 'infinite' resistance so, according to simplified Johnson
theory, it generates infinte voltage noise - but from a source
which is is capable of gving zero current. Zero current produces
zero voltage across a capacitor.


No it isn't resistive - it is reactive.

I was being purist. No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

Remember the residual - huge - resistance of the capsule is in
parallel with the bias resistor, which is orders of magnitude bigger.

d

Bugger - I meant smaller, of course. (Just got back from the dentist
is my excuse!)

...and you are looking a bit down in the mouth? :-)

You know the drill...

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 9:16*am, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:32:29 +0000,
....



I was being purist. *No capacitor is a perfect reactance and when the
resistance is 'infinite' and noise rises with resistance, you have to
sit down and explain to yourself why there is no Johnson Noise from it.

To be a bit more careful, the Fluctuation Dissipation theorem states
that it is dissipation that leads to noise -- Johnson noise in
resistors (or lossy capacitors or inductors), Brownian motion in
mechanical oscillators. A perfectlylossless capacitor has no
dissipation, thus generates no Johnson noise.

d.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 9:28*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article 4976eb4e.436215546@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
On 20 Jan 2009 18:01:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article 49724f9c.134214015@localhost, Don Pearce wrote:
Kludge wrote:
i don't trust the noise figures on the data sheet and I kind of doubt
the NT1 is as quiet as the manufacturer claims. *But it's still very
quiet and certainly quieter than an RE-50.

I've measured one of mine, substituting an equivalent non-microphonic
capacitor for the capsule, and it met the spec quite happily -
something over 4dB. Certainly much quieter than any dynamic I ever
looked at.

If you disconnect the primary noise source in the microphone (which is
the capsule in any good modern design), of course you will get very
good noise numbers. *Unfortunately these numbers are not useful and
correlate neither with the published IEC and ISO measurements nor with
the real-world performance.

The capsule isn't the noise source - what would the mechanism be? And
please don't say Brownian motion of the air molecules, because that
isn't microphone noise, it is an external signal the microphone
responds to just like any other.

Yes, on a typical microphone today, Brownian noise is the main noise source.
The air is part of the capsule... *you don't use it in a vacuum, you use it
with air in it, so you have to measure it with air in it.

Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger. *Blame the folks at the ISO.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. *C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

....and, of course, there is not only the Brownian motion of the air
molecules, but the Brownian motion of the membrane itself (being a far-
from-loss-free mechanical oscillator in equilibrium with the thermal
environment). It would be satisfying to know where this noise source
lies, as it is something that could be addressed by engineering if
needed; it is, however, probably negligible.

d.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

mrgou wrote:

I'm trying to choose a semi-pro microphone for outdoor field
recording, and having a hard time finding the balance between
sensitivity and frequency response.

Look for a Sennheiser MKH 106. Depending on the version you find it uses 16V
tonleiter or phantom, a phantom adapter is available on the market for the
tonleiter version.

If I am correct in my
understanding that higher sensitivity will allow fainter sounds to be
recorded, am I correct that for outdoor field recording, it is better
to have a higher sensitivity than broader frequency response? If I am,
would you agree that the AKG D230 (sens.: 2.5 mV/Pa; FR: 40 - 20 kHz)
is a better choice than the ElectroVoice RE50 (sens.: 1.8 mV/Pa; FR 80
Hz to 13,000 Hz)?

As I recall the occasional posts about environmental recording - or whatever
you wanna call it - the MKH 106 is the first choice, a newer Sennheiser MKH
the second and then there is the rest. If you wanna go dynamic then a MD
211, also that one a Senhheiser. No aaffiliation.

Raphael

Kind regards

Peter Larsen