Hi Milton:
I chose the GW filter because its quoted selectivity (4.5 khz) was pretty narrow, assuming that the 4.5 khz referred to the entire passband, as it does with other high-end filters. I subsequently learned that the 4.5 khz referred to each side (i.e., 9 khz total), so in retrospect I would have put in a narrower filter. Still, even with the GW, it is a new radio!
The HW version appears to be available on eBay, but I have never found the IW available other than wholesale.
So, if I were you, I would use the HW. If you can find the HTW, IW or ITW version, let us know!!!
Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Kevin & Gil !
Thank you both for your attention !
I just read the SRF-M37 mods and saved the photos and filter indications of the Ebay seller.
I liked to know the mod is possible but ive a simple question : Im eying the Velco Electonic table with all the filters and i dont understand why the LTS-450-GW was the choosen instead of LTS-450-ITW, having this filter a best selectivity in 6dB (+/-2.0Khz), while LTS-450-GWs selectivity is (+/-4.5Khz) ?
Is there some possibility to install ITW instead of GW filter or is is there some techinical limitation to install ITW ?
Milton Curitiba city Parana state Brasil
2c. Re: SRF-M37V and SRF-M37W-Performance differences? Posted by: "satya@..." satya@... dhsatyadhana Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:09 pm (PDT) Hi Milton:
Sorry, it was done by someone else, so I'm afraid I don't even know what it looks like inside.
Hey Gil Stacy - do you remember how the filter is changed out???
Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
> Hi Kevin ! > > I also have a SRV-M37V and i have an intention to change the filter. > > I have a technical background to make this change. > > Do you have the source of this changing information ? > > Milton > Curitiba city > Brasil >
|
|
Hi Gary :) Thank you for your kind thanks for my mod articles. I'm sorry that some folk may have been misled into thinking the selectivity enhancement would be much greater. There was not that much effort expended in development. On obtaining both the DT-210L and the DT-400W I was extremely disappointed by the very poor selectivity. My gut reaction was that I had to do something about it and whilst I was 'at it' I took a few photos reckoning that it may be of use to someone somewhere! I'm fully aware of the performance provided by the premium filters you and others have been using for 9-kHz split DX chasing. I've used them myself in my AOR AR7030 for many years but not yet in a ULR. Some thoughts: I know you and Guy Atkins have spent quite some time developing filter mods for various ULRs. I wonder whether it might be worth investigating the Collins Low-Cost Series of mechanical filters that have a superior passband ripple to ceramic filters possibly enhancing the intelligibility of reception. Expensive, but when only the best will do. Inrad have a 2kHz 8 pole variant: < http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=19&cat=5&page=1> or a 2.3kHz 10 pole variant: http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=18&cat=5&page=1In the DT-200VX and DT-400W, if space cannot be found for the filter within the case maybe one of the AA cells could be disposed of to create a space for the installation the filter. The remaining AA cell bay could then be loaded with a 3.6V Lithium AA cell. Thanks once again for your consideration. 73 -- Michael Slattery Sheffield, UK
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:24:13 EDT, you wrote: Hi Michael,
Thank you for your work in developing the LTM450HT filter modifications for the Sangean models, and for uploading the information to DXer.Ca.
Steve and I were working toward the specific goal of transforming the 450 kHz Sangean models into very effective 9-kHz split DX chasers for transoceanic reception, such as we had successfully accomplished with the 455 kHz Eton E100 model last summer. We knew before commencing the work that 450 kHz "consumer-grade" filters are not comparable with the premium Murata CFJ455K5 filters we used in the E100, but we wanted to try anything available, since a vastly improved Slider loopstick had already been successfully transplanted into the DT-200VX (as described in a DXer.Ca article), greatly boosting the model's sensitivity.
Unfortunately, the project was probably doomed from the start, due to unrealistic expectations. If you have ever used one of the premium 455 kHz Murata K filters for transoceanic DXing, you will probably understand how quickly a DXer can become spoiled with the phenomenal performance. Anyway, we never meant to be dismissive of your LTM450HT modification for domestic DXing, and hope you will understand that our 9 kHz-split DXing performance requirements are far more demanding than those of the average DXer. We regret any impression to the contrary.
73 and Best Wishes, Gary DeBock
In a message dated 4/2/2009 6:50:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, knallebo@... writes:
Whether the 450 kHz filter modification would be useless or not probably depends on the type of DX you pursue. Before carrying out a mod you have to determine what you expect.
As the author of the DT-210L & DT-400W filter mod articles, I find the comment that the mod is 'not worth all the effort' frankly incredible!
The mods were not offered as a panacea for turning these radios into 9/10kHz-split DXers machines. That would be impossible with the type of filters (6kHz @6dB BW) used. Rather, the articles were offered in the spirit of improving the usability of these radios in the domestic context. The give-away line in my article was 'the intrinsic quality of the audio remains.' By implication therefore, the mod filter is not especially selective merely an improvement on the original.
The moral of the story is to make sure any ULR you intend to mod for 9/10kHz-split DXing has a 455kHz IF system and the ability to tune in at least 1kHz steps or better. 450kHz IF radios are a waste of time since narrow filters with a good shape factor are simply unavailable.
Whilst agreeing fully with the remark by Steve about skirt selectivity and filter size, I have to ask:
Was the LTM450HT filter used? Nothing else will bring much improvement except for a LTM450IT or even narrower filter, if you could find one. The 'T' suffix in the filter model number is important since these have superior skirt selectivity over those without the 'T' suffix.
Living here in the UK I frequently wonder what North American DXers mean by a 'high RF environment'mean by a 'high RF environment'<WBR>. Among of one 150kW & two 400kW MF transmitters & less than 1 mile of two 1kW MF transmitters.
The DT-210L & DT-400W filter mods have transformed the reception capabilities of these radios close to these powerful signals. Before the mod, five (9kHz) channels either side of the frequency of one of these strong locals were rendered useless for weak signal reception by the original filter. After the mod I am able to hear weak signals on the immediately adjacent channels (±9kHz) with only a small level of adjacent channel interference.
Perhaps your RF environment(Perhaps your RF environment(<WBR>s) are not r that is the reason you are not reaping the reward from the mod?
-- Michael Slattery Sheffield, UK
|
|

Gary DeBock
Hi Michael,
Thanks again for your filter modification work, and your kind
comments.
Actually both Guy Atkins and Steve Ratzlaff are far more experienced in
filter modification work than me, and I've simply managed to learn a few things
by having the privilege of working with them. My own contribution to the ULR
experimentation efforts here has been in loopstick improvements, in attempts to
make these tiny radios as sensitive as possible. If you are a member of MWC, you
may have seen a few of my fanatical loopstick articles that were published in
Medium Wave News.
About a year ago, I learned the harsh lesson that sensitivity improvements
alone were not going to make a major difference in chasing 9 kHz-split DX with
Ultralight radios. A small radio needs both a major sensitivity boost
and a major selectivity boost in combination, to make a radical improvement in
overall performance.
By a tremendous stroke of luck, one of the primary filter experts in the
USA (Guy Atkins) lived right in my small home town, here in Washington
state. Our cooperation last summer (along with contributions by John
Bryant) produced the first major breakthrough in ULR 9 kHz-split DXing
performance, the fully modified Eton E100. Steve and I were attempting to
create something similar with the DT-400W in the winter, but despite our
unrealistic expectations, we ran up against the harsh reality that all the
commercially available 450 kHz IF filters are
mediocre for transoceanic DXing.
73 and Best Wishes,
Gary DeBock
In a message dated 4/3/2009 7:45:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
knallebo@... writes:
Hi Gary :)
Thank you for your kind thanks for my mod articles. I'm
sorry that some folk may have been misled into thinking the
selectivity enhancement would be much greater.
There was not that
much effort expended in development. On obtaining both the DT-210L and the
DT-400W I was extremely disappointed by the very poor selectivity. My gut
reaction was that I had to do something about it and whilst I was 'at it' I
took a few photos reckoning that it may be of use to someone
somewhere!
I'm fully aware of the performance provided by the premium
filters you and others have been using for 9-kHz split DX chasing. I've
used them myself in my AOR AR7030 for many years but not yet in a
ULR.
Some thoughts: I know you and Guy Atkins have spent quite some
time developing filter mods for various ULRs. I wonder whether it might
be worth investigating the Collins Low-Cost Series of mechanical
filters that have a superior passband ripple to ceramic filters
possibly enhancing the intelligibility of reception. Expensive, but when
only the best will do. Inrad have a 2kHz 8 pole variant: <http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=19&cat=5&page=1> or
a 2.3kHz 10 pole variant: http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=18&cat=5&page=1
In
the DT-200VX and DT-400W, if space cannot be found for the filter within
the case maybe one of the AA cells could be disposed of to create a space
for the installation the filter. The remaining AA cell bay could then be
loaded with a 3.6V Lithium AA cell.
Thanks once again for your
consideration.
73
-- Michael Slattery Sheffield,
UK
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:24:13 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi
Michael, > >Thank you for your work in developing the LTM450HT
filter modifications for >the Sangean models, and for uploading the
information to DXer.Ca. > >Steve and I were working toward the
specific goal of transforming the 450 >kHz Sangean models into very
effective 9-kHz split DX chasers for transoceanic >reception, such as
we had successfully accomplished with the 455 kHz Eton >E100 model last
summer. We knew before commencing the work that 450 kHz
>"consumer-grade" filters are not comparable with the premium Murata
CFJ455K5 filters >we used in the E100, but we wanted to try anything
available, since a vastly >improved Slider loopstick had already been
successfully transplanted into the >DT-200VX (as described in a DXer.Ca
article), greatly boosting the model's >sensitivity. >
>Unfortunately, the project was probably doomed from the start, due to
>unrealistic expectations. If you have ever used one of the premium 455
kHz Murata K >filters for transoceanic DXing, you will probably
understand how quickly a >DXer can become spoiled with the phenomenal
performance. Anyway, we never >meant to be dismissive of your LTM450HT
modification for domestic DXing, and hope >you will understand that our
9 kHz-split DXing performance requirements are >far more demanding than
those of the average DXer. We regret any impression >to the
contrary. > >73 and Best Wishes, Gary DeBock > >
>In a message dated 4/2/2009 6:50:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>knallebo@yahoo.co.uk
writes: > > > > >>Whether the 450 kHz
filter modification would be useless or not probably >>depends on
the type of DX you pursue. > >Before carrying out a mod you have
to determine what you expect. > >As the author of the DT-210L
& DT-400W filter mod articles, I find the >comment that the mod is
'not worth all the effort' frankly incredible! > >The mods were
not offered as a panacea for turning these radios into >9/10kHz-split
DXers machines. That would be impossible with the type >of filters (6kHz
@6dB BW) used. Rather, the articles were offered in >the spirit of
improving the usability of these radios in the domestic >context. The
give-away line in my article was 'the intrinsic quality >of the audio
remains.' By implication therefore, the mod filter is not >especially
selective merely an improvement on the original. > >The moral of
the story is to make sure any ULR you intend to mod for >9/10kHz-split
DXing has a 455kHz IF system and the ability to tune in >at least 1kHz
steps or better. 450kHz IF radios are a waste of time >since narrow
filters with a good shape factor are simply unavailable. > >Whilst
agreeing fully with the remark by Steve about skirt selectivity >and
filter size, I have to ask: > >Was the LTM450HT filter used?
Nothing else will bring much improvement >except for a LTM450IT or even
narrower filter, if you could find one. >The 'T' suffix in the filter
model number is important since these >have superior skirt selectivity
over those without the 'T' suffix. > >Living here in the UK I
frequently wonder what North American DXers >mean by a 'high RF
environment'mean by a 'high RF environment'.
Among >of one 150kW & two 400kW MF transmitters & less than 1
mile of two 1kW >MF transmitters. > >The DT-210L &
DT-400W filter mods have transformed the reception >capabilities of
these radios close to these powerful signals. Before >the mod, five
(9kHz) channels either side of the frequency of one of >these strong
locals were rendered useless for weak signal reception by >the original
filter. After the mod I am able to hear weak signals on >the immediately
adjacent channels (±9kHz) with only a small level of >adjacent channel
interference. > >Perhaps your RF environment(Perhaps your RF
environment(s) are not r >that is the reason you are not
reaping the reward from the mod? > >-- >Michael
Slattery >Sheffield, UK
Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession.
|
|

Gary DeBock
Hello Again Michael,
Thanks once more for your kind comments. I'm always amazed at how the
Ultralight radio DXing boom has spread around the world, and am
happy to have played a small part in making it happen.
To be honest, when I wrote the first SRF-59 review, I was quite concerned
that I would be laughed out of the IRCA. The idea of transoceanic DXing
with a Walkman radio seemed ludicrous to many in late 2007, and it is to Steve's
eternal credit that he recognized the enthusiasm-boosting potential of this
new form of DXing, and promptly published the SRF-59 review in MWN.
I'm very happy that my reviews have motivated you to purchase a few pocket
radios for your DXing fun, and that my fanatical articles in MWN have been
interesting. There are a few more articles in the works (both technical and
radio reviews) for which Steve will hopefully find space in his
outstanding bulletin.
73 and Best Wishes,
Gary
In a message dated 4/5/2009 11:25:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
knallebo@... writes:
Hi Gary
Yes, I am a member of MWC and I've avidly read your
fanatical loopstick and other articles. Indeed Gary, it was your article in
MW News January 2008 about the Sony SRF-59 that rekindled my interest
in MW DXing. You've got such a readable easy style of writing
that retains the interest, making the reader want more. Your
sheer enthusiasm really leaps from the page. Sincerely, have you
ever thought of becoming a professional author?
There are many who
owe you for founding the Ultralight movement. Not just DXers, but also the
radio vendors. The hobby could not have a better advocate! Your articles
have been responsible for my obtaining the SRF-59, SRF-T615, DT-210L &
DT-400W radios and generally 'doing' radio again. Unfortunately I've yet to
hear any TA DX on any of them.
73 -- Michael Slattery
G8PNX Sheffield, UK
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:37:39 EDT, you
wrote:
>Hi Michael, > >Thanks again for your filter
modification work, and your kind comments. > >Actually both Guy
Atkins and Steve Ratzlaff are far more experienced in >filter
modification work than me, and I've simply managed to learn a few things
>by having the privilege of working with them. My own contribution to
the ULR >experimentation efforts here has been in loopstick
improvements, in attempts to > make these tiny radios as sensitive as
possible. If you are a member of MWC, >you may have seen a few of my
fanatical loopstick articles that were >published in Medium Wave
News. > >About a year ago, I learned the harsh lesson that
sensitivity improvements >alone were not going to make a major
difference in chasing 9 kHz-split DX with >Ultralight radios. A small
radio needs both a major sensitivity boost and a >major selectivity
boost in combination, to make a radical improvement in >overall
performance. > >By a tremendous stroke of luck, one of the
primary filter experts in the USA >(Guy Atkins) lived right in my small
home town, here in Washington state. >Our cooperation last summer
(along with contributions by John Bryant) produced >the first major
breakthrough in ULR 9 kHz-split DXing performance, the fully >modified
Eton E100. Steve and I were attempting to create something similar
>with the DT-400W in the winter, but despite our unrealistic
expectations, we >ran up against the harsh reality that all the
commercially available 450 kHz >IF filters are mediocre for
transoceanic DXing. > >73 and Best Wishes, > >Gary
DeBock > > >In a message dated 4/3/2009 7:45:52 P.M.
Pacific Daylight Time, >knallebo@yahoo.co.uk
writes: > > > > >Hi Gary
:) > >Thank you for your kind thanks for my mod articles. I'm
sorry that >some folk may have been misled into thinking the
selectivity >enhancement would be much greater. > >There was
not that much effort expended in development. On obtaining >both the
DT-210L and the DT-400W I was extremely disappointed by the >very poor
selectivity. My gut reaction was that I had to do something >about it
and whilst I was 'at it' I took a few photos reckoning that >it may be
of use to someone somewhere! > >I'm fully aware of the performance
provided by the premium filters you >and others have been using for
9-kHz split DX chasing. I've used them >myself in my AOR AR7030 for many
years but not yet in a ULR. > >Some thoughts: I know you and Guy
Atkins have spent quite some time >developing filter mods for various
ULRs. I wonder whether it might be >worth investigating the Collins
Low-Cost Series of mechanical filters >that have a superior passband
ripple to ceramic filters possibly >enhancing the intelligibility of
reception. Expensive, but when only >the best will do. Inrad have a 2kHz
8 pole variant: ><_http://www.inrad.http://www.ihttp://www.inrht&cat=5&p_
>(http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=19&cat=5&page=1)
> >or a 2.3kHz 10 pole variant: >_http://www.inrad.http://www.ihttp://www.inrht&cat=5&p_
>(http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=18&cat=5&page=1)
> >In the DT-200VX and DT-400W, if space cannot be found for the
filter >within the case maybe one of the AA cells could be disposed of
to >create a space for the installation the filter. The remaining AA
cell >bay could then be loaded with a 3.6V Lithium AA
cell. > >Thanks once again for your
consideration. > >73
Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession.
|
|
Hi Gary
Yes, I am a member of MWC and I've avidly read your fanatical loopstick and other articles. Indeed Gary, it was your article in MW News January 2008 about the Sony SRF-59 that rekindled my interest in MW DXing. You've got such a readable easy style of writing that retains the interest, making the reader want more. Your sheer enthusiasm really leaps from the page. Sincerely, have you ever thought of becoming a professional author?
There are many who owe you for founding the Ultralight movement. Not just DXers, but also the radio vendors. The hobby could not have a better advocate! Your articles have been responsible for my obtaining the SRF-59, SRF-T615, DT-210L & DT-400W radios and generally 'doing' radio again. Unfortunately I've yet to hear any TA DX on any of them.
73 -- Michael Slattery G8PNX Sheffield, UK
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:37:39 EDT, you wrote: Hi Michael,
Thanks again for your filter modification work, and your kind comments.
Actually both Guy Atkins and Steve Ratzlaff are far more experienced in filter modification work than me, and I've simply managed to learn a few things by having the privilege of working with them. My own contribution to the ULR experimentation efforts here has been in loopstick improvements, in attempts to make these tiny radios as sensitive as possible. If you are a member of MWC, you may have seen a few of my fanatical loopstick articles that were published in Medium Wave News.
About a year ago, I learned the harsh lesson that sensitivity improvements alone were not going to make a major difference in chasing 9 kHz-split DX with Ultralight radios. A small radio needs both a major sensitivity boost and a major selectivity boost in combination, to make a radical improvement in overall performance.
By a tremendous stroke of luck, one of the primary filter experts in the USA (Guy Atkins) lived right in my small home town, here in Washington state. Our cooperation last summer (along with contributions by John Bryant) produced the first major breakthrough in ULR 9 kHz-split DXing performance, the fully modified Eton E100. Steve and I were attempting to create something similar with the DT-400W in the winter, but despite our unrealistic expectations, we ran up against the harsh reality that all the commercially available 450 kHz IF filters are mediocre for transoceanic DXing.
73 and Best Wishes,
Gary DeBock
In a message dated 4/3/2009 7:45:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, knallebo@... writes:
Hi Gary :)
Thank you for your kind thanks for my mod articles. I'm sorry that some folk may have been misled into thinking the selectivity enhancement would be much greater.
There was not that much effort expended in development. On obtaining both the DT-210L and the DT-400W I was extremely disappointed by the very poor selectivity. My gut reaction was that I had to do something about it and whilst I was 'at it' I took a few photos reckoning that it may be of use to someone somewhere!
I'm fully aware of the performance provided by the premium filters you and others have been using for 9-kHz split DX chasing. I've used them myself in my AOR AR7030 for many years but not yet in a ULR.
Some thoughts: I know you and Guy Atkins have spent quite some time developing filter mods for various ULRs. I wonder whether it might be worth investigating the Collins Low-Cost Series of mechanical filters that have a superior passband ripple to ceramic filters possibly enhancing the intelligibility of reception. Expensive, but when only the best will do. Inrad have a 2kHz 8 pole variant: <_http://www.inrad.http://www.ihttp://www.inrht&cat=5&<WBR>p_ (http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=19&cat=5&page=1) > or a 2.3kHz 10 pole variant: _http://www.inrad.http://www.ihttp://www.inrht&cat=5&<WBR>p_ (http://www.inrad.net/product.php?productid=18&cat=5&page=1)
In the DT-200VX and DT-400W, if space cannot be found for the filter within the case maybe one of the AA cells could be disposed of to create a space for the installation the filter. The remaining AA cell bay could then be loaded with a 3.6V Lithium AA cell.
Thanks once again for your consideration.
73
|
|
Kevin (and all) Just received my upgraded M37V from Radiolabs. I must say, while it may not be up to fishing out splits from across the ocean, the nominal 4.5 KHz Euroquartz LTS450GW makes the difference between "unuseable" and "very nice" in my high RF environment near several MW transmitters. This was a radio I really wanted to like but ended up being thrown in the bin because of its "barn door" selectivity. It's the same basic size as the SRF-59 but more sensitive, and now comparably selective. http://www.euroquartz.co.uk/pdf/ceramic-lts-450w.pdf
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
--- In ultralightdx@..., satya@... wrote: Hi Alex/All:
I have both a stock and a re-filtered M37V. The selectivity on the re-filtered (with the LT450GW) is VERY good, noticeably better than the not-too-shabby SRF-59 and almost that of the stock Eton e100. The stock M37V is an absolute barn door, so it turns a Turkey into something of an eagle. As Gary mentioned previously, it is now an Unlimited class Ultralight, but it really becomes a great little radio.
As Steve Ratzlaff mentioned earlier, these little filters cannot be expected to perform like the Murata narrow filter, but it is still a huge improvement and an excellent domestic DXing filter choice. It even dabbles in split frequencies: at the beach this past Tuesday morning, the M37V was able to get good barefoot readability on 774-JOUB from Japan when signals were sufficient, keeping strong stations on 770 and 780 at bay.
To change from 9 to 10 khz, first turn the unit off. Power and Clock are the buttons across the top. First push and hold Clock, THEN press and hold Power, and hold both for about 5 seconds. Eventually a 9 or 10 will flash on the screen, indicating to which tuning increment you have just switched. Those 5 seconds seem an eternity...
Hope this helps - Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
Hi Alex,
Actually even replacing the horrendous IF filter in the SRF-M37V with one of the modest 450 kHz upgrades would place the radio in the "unlimited" class. Because of this, fanatical tinkerers do everything possible to boost performance-- premium filters, Slider loopsticks, and/or large directional external antennas. But the unique thrill of receiving rare DX on a stock Ultralight is still a big attraction, even for me. The Sangean DT-400W, Sony SRF-T615, Eton E100 and C.Crane SWP stock Ultralights are very thrilling to take along on DXpeditions, and can receive many TP's when conditions are right.
The SRF-M37V does have a procedure for switching between 9 kHz and 10 kHz AM band tuning steps, and I'm sure that someone on the list can tell you about it (sorry, but my own manual seems to have disappeared, also). In the early days of the Ultralight boom (December 2007), the radio was one of the most popular digital Ultralights, despite the barn-door selectivity.
73, Gary
In a message dated 4/2/2009 12:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rifleman336@... writes:
--- In _ultralightdx@ultralightdxult_ (mailto:ultralightdx@...) , D1028Gary@, D1
Hi Alex,
Whether the 450 kHz filter modification would be useless or not probably depends on the type of DX you pursue.
For domestic DXers looking for a little more sensitivity, the modification may help out somewhat. But for 9 kHz-split DXers chasing transoceanic DX next
to strong domestic stations, these modest 450 kHz filters are not going to provide any significant help. Both Steve and I enjoy this type of transoceanic
DXing, which is probably why we are more demanding than domestic DXers in evaluating filter performance.
We also have probably been spoiled by the phenomenal performance of the 455
kHz Murata "K" filter upgrades in the Slider E100's, which routinely allow reception of weak TP's only 2 kHz away from strong domestics. Other filters seem
very lame, in comparison.
73, Gary DeBock
Almost sounds like grounds for using a off board DSP filter, and a loop antenna for more directivity. Ofcourse that throughs it in to the ultralight unlimited class. Bummer!!! :>(
BTW, How do you listen to 9KHZ stations when the M37's are 10 KHz increments. I've lost the manual is their a hidden switch or a "keyboard trick"?
ALEX N8UCN/KOH8IG
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
|
|
Hi Mike
Glad that you go the M37V fixed up - I wasn't aware that Radiolabs did filter upgrades for individual units! Not sure where you're at, but here in the Seattle area, it makes all the difference on the M37V.
The published Sangean DT-400W mod uses the next-narrower filter, the 3.0 khz HW version, so it is a little tighter yet, and I am contemplating putting an HW on my other M37V. Would you mind telling me/us what Radiolabs charges for an individual job like this?
Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Kevin (and all)
Just received my upgraded M37V from Radiolabs. I must say, while it may not be up to fishing out splits from across the ocean, the nominal 4.5 KHz Euroquartz LTS450GW makes the difference between "unuseable" and "very nice" in my high RF environment near several MW transmitters. This was a radio I really wanted to like but ended up being thrown in the bin because of its "barn door" selectivity. It's the same basic size as the SRF-59 but more sensitive, and now comparably selective.
http://www.euroquartz.co.uk/pdf/ceramic-lts-450w.pdf
--- In ultralightdx@..., satya@... wrote:
Hi Alex/All:
I have both a stock and a re-filtered M37V. The selectivity on the re-filtered (with the LT450GW) is VERY good, noticeably better than the not-too-shabby SRF-59 and almost that of the stock Eton e100. The stock M37V is an absolute barn door, so it turns a Turkey into something of an eagle. As Gary mentioned previously, it is now an Unlimited class Ultralight, but it really becomes a great little radio.
As Steve Ratzlaff mentioned earlier, these little filters cannot be expected to perform like the Murata narrow filter, but it is still a huge improvement and an excellent domestic DXing filter choice. It even dabbles in split frequencies: at the beach this past Tuesday morning, the M37V was able to get good barefoot readability on 774-JOUB from Japan when signals were sufficient, keeping strong stations on 770 and 780 at bay.
To change from 9 to 10 khz, first turn the unit off. Power and Clock are the buttons across the top. First push and hold Clock, THEN press and hold Power, and hold both for about 5 seconds. Eventually a 9 or 10 will flash on the screen, indicating to which tuning increment you have just switched. Those 5 seconds seem an eternity...
Hope this helps - Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
Hi Alex,
Actually even replacing the horrendous IF filter in the SRF-M37V with one
of the modest 450 kHz upgrades would place the radio in the "unlimited" class. Because of this, fanatical tinkerers do everything possible to boost performance-- premium filters, Slider loopsticks, and/or large directional
external antennas. But the unique thrill of receiving rare DX on a stock Ultralight is still a big attraction, even for me. The Sangean DT-400W, Sony SRF-T615,
Eton E100 and C.Crane SWP stock Ultralights are very thrilling to take along
on DXpeditions, and can receive many TP's when conditions are right.
The SRF-M37V does have a procedure for switching between 9 kHz and 10 kHz
AM band tuning steps, and I'm sure that someone on the list can tell you about it (sorry, but my own manual seems to have disappeared, also). In the early days of the Ultralight boom (December 2007), the radio was one of the most popular digital Ultralights, despite the barn-door selectivity.
73, Gary
In a message dated 4/2/2009 12:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rifleman336@... writes:
--- In _ultralightdx@ultralightdxult_ (mailto:ultralightdx@...) , D1028Gary@, D1
Hi Alex,
Whether the 450 kHz filter modification would be useless or not probably depends on the type of DX you pursue.
For domestic DXers looking for a little more sensitivity, the modification may help out somewhat. But for 9 kHz-split DXers chasing
transoceanic
DX next
to strong domestic stations, these modest 450 kHz filters are not going
to provide any significant help. Both Steve and I enjoy this type of transoceanic
DXing, which is probably why we are more demanding than domestic DXers
in evaluating filter performance.
We also have probably been spoiled by the phenomenal performance of the
455
kHz Murata "K" filter upgrades in the Slider E100's, which routinely allow reception of weak TP's only 2 kHz away from strong domestics. Other filters seem
very lame, in comparison.
73, Gary DeBock
Almost sounds like grounds for using a off board DSP filter, and a loop
antenna for more directivity. Ofcourse that throughs it in to the ultralight unlimited class. Bummer!!! :>(
BTW, How do you listen to 9KHZ stations when the M37's are 10 KHz increments. I've lost the manual is their a hidden switch or a "keyboard
trick"?
ALEX N8UCN/KOH8IG
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
|
|
I only knew that Radiolabs used this filter for the ATS-909 upgrades, and that some had purchased the filters direct from them. On a hunch I emailed Todd D. and he said they'd certainly do the job for $39.95 plus shipping.
For the record in live in northern NJ near the wetlands where a number of MW stations have their transmitter sites. I've been through quite a few radios over the years, and in some the entire upper half of the band is wiped out from locals at 1010 and 1130.
regards -- mike
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
--- In ultralightdx@..., satya@... wrote: Hi Mike
Glad that you go the M37V fixed up - I wasn't aware that Radiolabs did filter upgrades for individual units! Not sure where you're at, but here in the Seattle area, it makes all the difference on the M37V.
The published Sangean DT-400W mod uses the next-narrower filter, the 3.0 khz HW version, so it is a little tighter yet, and I am contemplating putting an HW on my other M37V. Would you mind telling me/us what Radiolabs charges for an individual job like this?
Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
Kevin (and all)
Just received my upgraded M37V from Radiolabs. I must say, while it may not be up to fishing out splits from across the ocean, the nominal 4.5 KHz Euroquartz LTS450GW makes the difference between "unuseable" and "very nice" in my high RF environment near several MW transmitters. This was a radio I really wanted to like but ended up being thrown in the bin because of its "barn door" selectivity. It's the same basic size as the SRF-59 but more sensitive, and now comparably selective.
http://www.euroquartz.co.uk/pdf/ceramic-lts-450w.pdf
--- In ultralightdx@..., satya@ wrote:
Hi Alex/All:
I have both a stock and a re-filtered M37V. The selectivity on the re-filtered (with the LT450GW) is VERY good, noticeably better than the not-too-shabby SRF-59 and almost that of the stock Eton e100. The stock M37V is an absolute barn door, so it turns a Turkey into something of an eagle. As Gary mentioned previously, it is now an Unlimited class Ultralight, but it really becomes a great little radio.
As Steve Ratzlaff mentioned earlier, these little filters cannot be expected to perform like the Murata narrow filter, but it is still a huge improvement and an excellent domestic DXing filter choice. It even dabbles in split frequencies: at the beach this past Tuesday morning, the M37V was able to get good barefoot readability on 774-JOUB from Japan when signals were sufficient, keeping strong stations on 770 and 780 at bay.
To change from 9 to 10 khz, first turn the unit off. Power and Clock are the buttons across the top. First push and hold Clock, THEN press and hold Power, and hold both for about 5 seconds. Eventually a 9 or 10 will flash on the screen, indicating to which tuning increment you have just switched. Those 5 seconds seem an eternity...
Hope this helps - Kevin S Bainbridge Island, WA
Hi Alex,
Actually even replacing the horrendous IF filter in the SRF-M37V with one
of the modest 450 kHz upgrades would place the radio in the "unlimited" class. Because of this, fanatical tinkerers do everything possible to boost performance-- premium filters, Slider loopsticks, and/or large directional
external antennas. But the unique thrill of receiving rare DX on a stock Ultralight is still a big attraction, even for me. The Sangean DT-400W, Sony SRF-T615,
Eton E100 and C.Crane SWP stock Ultralights are very thrilling to take along
on DXpeditions, and can receive many TP's when conditions are right.
The SRF-M37V does have a procedure for switching between 9 kHz and 10 kHz
AM band tuning steps, and I'm sure that someone on the list can tell you about it (sorry, but my own manual seems to have disappeared, also). In the early days of the Ultralight boom (December 2007), the radio was one of the most popular digital Ultralights, despite the barn-door selectivity.
73, Gary
In a message dated 4/2/2009 12:38:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rifleman336@ writes:
--- In _ultralightdx@ultralightdxult_ (mailto:ultralightdx@...) , D1028Gary@, D1
Hi Alex,
Whether the 450 kHz filter modification would be useless or not probably depends on the type of DX you pursue.
For domestic DXers looking for a little more sensitivity, the modification may help out somewhat. But for 9 kHz-split DXers chasing
transoceanic
DX next
to strong domestic stations, these modest 450 kHz filters are not going
to provide any significant help. Both Steve and I enjoy this type of transoceanic
DXing, which is probably why we are more demanding than domestic DXers
in evaluating filter performance.
We also have probably been spoiled by the phenomenal performance of the
455
kHz Murata "K" filter upgrades in the Slider E100's, which routinely allow reception of weak TP's only 2 kHz away from strong domestics. Other filters seem
very lame, in comparison.
73, Gary DeBock
Almost sounds like grounds for using a off board DSP filter, and a loop
antenna for more directivity. Ofcourse that throughs it in to the ultralight unlimited class. Bummer!!! :>(
BTW, How do you listen to 9KHZ stations when the M37's are 10 KHz increments. I've lost the manual is their a hidden switch or a "keyboard
trick"?
ALEX N8UCN/KOH8IG
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)
|
|