Thanks Alex for getting back. That's a shame that the 1.2.0 schematics haven't been released yet. I think that I would need these to ensure the work on an external microphone for bat recording is done properly and consistently between the versions. Is there a plan to release these at some point?

Many thanks Alex. Are the schematics for the 1.2.0 available anywhere? I have found a copy of the schematics for 1.1.0.

Does anyone know if the analog input circuitry is the same with the older 1.0.0 as the 1.1.0? I think that I am safe with testing that I am doing with external microphones with the 1.1.0 (the 1.1.0 schematics are available), but don't know about the 1.0.0.

Many thanks Alex. This is brilliant news! I really look forward to testing this. Thanks for considering this feature.

Many thanks Edwin. That's really helpful. I know that colleagues in Belgium have been planning on testing the Knowles SPU0410LR05-QB in an external microphone. I would be really interested if you get any feedback on the performance of this microphone as an external microphone. As I say for me, the main barrier for me is the attenuation of weaker ends of calls at higher frequency, which is a particular problem for Myotis.

I would really like to try and Audiomoth with an external microphone for bat recording. One of the main barriers for me is the attenuation of weaker bat calls at higher frequency, which makes it difficult to use the Audiomoth for the sound identification of Myotis species in particular. I know that several commercial bat detectors use FG microphones produced by Knowles (e.g. the FG-23629), where the main downside seems to be the increased cost, but they are insensitive to water and dust, and they have a much latter frequency response compared with the MEMS microphone at the higher frequencies. Does anyone know if there would there be any particular difficulty in using an FG microphone with the Audiomoth?

I just picked up on this comment. This sounds like this could address some of the issues of the amplitude trigger for bat recording if the longer trigger duration allows for the whole bat pass (sequence of calls) to be retained (i.e. less likely for there to be compression between individual calls in a sequence). Have I interpreted this correctly?