Re: Sony SRF M 37 vs SRF M 35.

dhsatyadhana <satya@...>

Another good source of info on these two models, primarily from an FM perspective, is here:
This reviewer is very much focussed on FM reception and fidelity, so his recommendations might be different than those for a MW DX machine. What struck me is that he states that the noise level on the M37V is much quieter (I have the M37V, and it is indeed a quiet set). He faults the IF section, presumably lamenting an overly-narrow FM IF section.

Kevin S
Bainbridge Island, WA

--- In ultralightdx@..., kevin redding <amfmdx@...> wrote:

On Apr 11, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Horacio Nigro wrote:

A Brazilian guy is querying me about the difference between the
Sony SRF M 37 and SRF M 35.
I don't own anyone, but from the posts read here I understand the
37 is a good UL (I am aware of the performances obtained with it by
Gary Deacon in S. Africa.). And it's better in a non urban
environment. But what's the game with the 35?
I have had both. To me the only difference is the packaging. The
reception is very similar. I do know that if you change the FM filter
the SRF-M35 is a very nice ULR that will really DX FM big time, Of
course the M37 has WX and the M35 does not.

I have two older radios that are good but not excellent UL radios.
The Sony SRF-M40W and an SRF-M33. The 33 is a bit wide though but it
will DX null well and sounds good. The M40W is a great radio and is a
little better than the M37. Both of these radios are rare to find and
they haven't been made in many years.

Mostly I DX with an Eton E-1 or Sony 2010 but do DX with ULRs and for
a good while, I used nothing but the Sony SRF-M40W for about two years.


Join { to automatically receive all group messages.