For the most part these radios are very similiar adios - are the sync
detectors the same in both radios. i have read that the sw-2 is
actually a little better than the sw-8? can anyonw comment.

thx, john

Although the Sync detector might be better (I am not sure, because I never
use them), I don't believe that the SW-2 is in the same class as the SW-8.
The SW-8 uses 11-element ceramic ladder filters for all of the I.F.
bandwidths, and it has a pretty strong 1st mixer. I am not sure if the SW-2
uses a strong mixer or not.
When I spoke to somebody at Drake when the SW-2 first came out, I was told
that this design uses an NE-602 for the 1st mixer. Although the 602 is fine
for the 2nd mixer if you have a crystal filter ahead of it, it just doesn't
have the IMD performance of other mixers.
The SW-2 appears to have quite a bit of collector value, but if you could
get ahold of the SW-8 for a similar price, the SW-8 wins hands down.

Pete

"john" wrote in message
oups.com...
For the most part these radios are very similiar adios - are the sync
detectors the same in both radios. i have read that the sw-2 is
actually a little better than the sw-8? can anyonw comment.

thx, john

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:22:49 -0600, "Pete KE9OA"
wrote:

Although the Sync detector might be better (I am not sure, because I never
use them), I don't believe that the SW-2 is in the same class as the SW-8.
The SW-8 uses 11-element ceramic ladder filters for all of the I.F.
bandwidths, and it has a pretty strong 1st mixer. I am not sure if the SW-2
uses a strong mixer or not.
When I spoke to somebody at Drake when the SW-2 first came out, I was told
that this design uses an NE-602 for the 1st mixer. Although the 602 is fine
for the 2nd mixer if you have a crystal filter ahead of it, it just doesn't
have the IMD performance of other mixers.
The SW-2 appears to have quite a bit of collector value, but if you could
get ahold of the SW-8 for a similar price, the SW-8 wins hands down.

Pete

I'll be happy to trade my SW2 for an SW8. The SW2 used to be a good
MW receiver, but IBOC has limited its utility, as you cannot have both
sidebands on in SYNC mode. R. Netherlands says the front end is

The HD Warbler and the hash or fade-free DX...

http://www.mwcircle.org/res-receiver-drakesw2.htm

I just got through reading the review on the link that you provided. Thank
you for posting it. This is good that this receiver uses good quality metal
cased ceramic filters. It appears to use the same noisy synthesizer as the
SW-8, and it doesn't use the input bandpass filters that the SW-8 uses.
Still, for a cheap price it isn't a bad receiver.
I have an SW-8 (1994 version), and it isn't a bad receiver. One thing I like
about the SW-8 is that the LCD is illuminated with a Lumitex fiber optic
illuminator. Only one high intensity LED radiates into a fiber optic bundle
that fans out into a flat panel. The advantage here is that by changing the
color of the LED you can choose your own display color. I knew there was
some reason that I kept this receiver around!
I stand corrected in my original impressions of the SW-2. Although the SW-8
is still a better receiver, the SW-2 still seems to be a fairly good design.

Pete

"David" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:22:49 -0600, "Pete KE9OA"
wrote:

Although the Sync detector might be better (I am not sure, because I never
use them), I don't believe that the SW-2 is in the same class as the SW-8.
The SW-8 uses 11-element ceramic ladder filters for all of the I.F.
bandwidths, and it has a pretty strong 1st mixer. I am not sure if the
SW-2
uses a strong mixer or not.
When I spoke to somebody at Drake when the SW-2 first came out, I was told
that this design uses an NE-602 for the 1st mixer. Although the 602 is
fine
for the 2nd mixer if you have a crystal filter ahead of it, it just
doesn't
have the IMD performance of other mixers.
The SW-2 appears to have quite a bit of collector value, but if you could
get ahold of the SW-8 for a similar price, the SW-8 wins hands down.

Pete

I'll be happy to trade my SW2 for an SW8. The SW2 used to be a good
MW receiver, but IBOC has limited its utility, as you cannot have both
sidebands on in SYNC mode. R. Netherlands says the front end is

The HD Warbler and the hash or fade-free DX...

http://www.mwcircle.org/res-receiver-drakesw2.htm

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:01:39 -0600, "Pete KE9OA"
wrote:

I just got through reading the review on the link that you provided. Thank
you for posting it. This is good that this receiver uses good quality metal
cased ceramic filters. It appears to use the same noisy synthesizer as the
SW-8, and it doesn't use the input bandpass filters that the SW-8 uses.
Still, for a cheap price it isn't a bad receiver.
I have an SW-8 (1994 version), and it isn't a bad receiver. One thing I like
about the SW-8 is that the LCD is illuminated with a Lumitex fiber optic
illuminator. Only one high intensity LED radiates into a fiber optic bundle
that fans out into a flat panel. The advantage here is that by changing the
color of the LED you can choose your own display color. I knew there was
some reason that I kept this receiver around!
I stand corrected in my original impressions of the SW-2. Although the SW-8
is still a better receiver, the SW-2 still seems to be a fairly good design.

Pete

You can work the passband against the SYNC detector by tuning off
center, in the opposite direction from the sideband chosen. This will
narrow the I. F. and lower splatter. It could use a 4 kHz filter for
AM/SYNC.

You can work the passband against the SYNC detector by tuning off
center, in the opposite direction from the sideband chosen. This will
narrow the I. F. and lower splatter. It could use a 4 kHz filter for
AM/SYNC.

The main thing is getting ahold of a Murata CFJ-455I. Murata stopped
production on the higher performance filters back in 2002. I never use Sync
detection, so it is a non issue for me. A few years back, I designed an
Analog Devices AD607 based sync detector that didn't have the problems that
I see with other sync detectors. I've still got the prototype. I was going
to market the unit, but there are so many variables when interfacing such a
unit to a receiver that I decided against it. Also, there doesn't seem to be
much of a demand for an outboard unit. Sherwood Engineering has an outboard
unit, but I don't think that this device is a high volume seller.

Pete