Brian Pits His Sangean WR-11 Against His WR-1 and Tivoli Model One

 

I received my Sangean WR-11 today, and decided to put it up to my usual tests.  I found it fared quite well, and almost identical to the older WR-1.  The WR-11's FM tuning dial was quite inaccurate, so I ended up opening the radio up and aligning the FM section.  The AM tuning was much more accurate, so I didn't touch the AM section.  While I had it open, I snapped a couple of pictures, plus a comparison of the insides of my Tivoli Model One.  

The first picture simply shows the Tivoli and the two Sangean radios.  If I had thought about it, I would've brought in my Boston Acoustics Receptor and added it to the picture...

This second and third pictures show the WR-11 and Model One opened up.  Notice the ferrite rod antenna on the WR-11, while the Model One has an internal loop antenna instead of a ferrite rod.

  

The next two pictures compare the speakers found in the Tivoli (shorter one on the left) and the Sangean (taller one on the right).

Notice the heavy shielding around the magnet of the Sangean's speaker.  This speaker is improved from the one found in the older WR-1.  The WR-1 came with an unshielded paper cone speaker.  The same goes for the Tivoli's speaker.  The WR-11, however, comes with a shielded polypropylene cone speaker.  The newer speaker has produces smoother sounding bass and less shrill treble.  Out of curiosity, I assembled the WR-11 with the Tivoli speaker, and the bass was much muddier than with the polypropylene speaker.  I did the same thing with the speaker from the WR-1, and it was much better than the Tivoli speaker, and almost as good as the polypropylene speaker from the WR-11.  The overall sound quality of the Sangeans is better than the Tivoli, plus the Tivoli's amplifier produces a hiss that is quite noticeable when listening at soft volumes, while the Sangeans are completely quiet.

As far as reception is concerned, The WR-1 and WR-11 both perform better than my Model One, being both more selective and less prone to drift.  The two Sangeans were nearly identical on all of my usual weak stations, while the Tivoli sometimes trailed behind due to interference from second adjacent stations.    There was never an instance where the Tivoli outshined the Sangeans.  The AM reception on the WR-11 may be slightly better than on the older WR-1, though I still find that my older portables are slightly cleaner with distant stations.  It is quite clear that FM reception and sound quality is the main emphasis of the Sangean table radios.  Surprisingly, my Tivoli sounded slightly better on weak AM stations, due to using the optional external loop antenna plugged in to the back.  The Tivoli external loop disconnects the internal loop, while there is no way to disconnect the internal ferrite antennas on the Sangean radios.  The problem with the Tivoli is that it won't stay on frequency when listening to AM, so listening to AM on the Tivoli can be frustrating.  

Overall, the Sangean WR-11 shows some minor improvements over the WR-1, and consistently outperforms the Tivoli Model One.

Brian

Comments

[Scooby214]

The problem with photobucket links is that they sometimes don't work properly. Let me send you the actual pictures in an email, as some of the photos shown in your post are of my crystal radio projects. I used photobucket because I took the pictures with my phone and find photobucket the fastest way to get the photos onto my computer. (My wife is out of town with the real camera.)

Brian

[Scooby214]

Looks like emailing the photos works better than the Photobucket links. I'll keep it in mind if I need to send you any photos in the future.

Brian

[Jeffrey McMahon]

jpeg photos are WAY easier. Thanks, Brian.

[Blake]

Very very well done Brian. The Tivoli rides on its marketing aura. I still really like mine though. Mainly because of its dark walnut with 7 layers of hand rubbed laquer finish. The platinum finish is a thing of beauty. I still think my Tivoli sounds terrific though the bass is over ripe. Works ok as a radio though. Tone and timbre on acoustic strings and voice are very good in my opinion. No question the sangeans are a better value even than the light walnut version of the Tivoli. I may get a WR-1 if I can find some kind of excuse.

[Stan]

I'm so glad I got rid of my Tivoli!
AM just plain sucked! FM was okay.
Took a big loss on ePay but that's life.

[Keith]

Great review Brian. Thank you.
I was thrilled when a neighbour of mine got the Tivoli so I was able to hear what all the hype was about.
Great disappointment. Glad I didn't gamble my money on it.
Looks like I'll invest in the Sangean.
Thanks Brian.
K

[Scooby214]

Based on the two Sangeans I have, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either the WR-1 or the WR-11. If you look long enough, you may be able to find a used WR-1 for a really good price. I've had the WR-1 longer than my Tivoli, and have used it more than the Tivoli, and yet the Tivoli is showing signs of age. My Tivoli's tuner has become a bit scratchy. It sounds similar to a volume pot that needs DeoxIt, though I don't know if the the little film variable cap in the Tivoli would respond well to DeoxIt. Some Amazon reviews on the Tivoli have indicated that others have also had this develop on their Model One radios. I can usually twist the knob around a few times and get the scratchiness to go away, but it still is annoying. The Tivoli is now mainly used as a speaker for my wife's mp3 player. She keeps the radio tuned to one station, so she only has to deal with the scratchiness when the tuner drifts off frequency and she has to adjust. I am a band scanner, so I want my analog tuners to be smooth and quiet.

Brian

[Jeffrey McMahon]

Brian's review is great and very revealing. Thanks, again.

[¾ Bilnd]

It looks like the face plate of the WR-1 is brushed aluminium reminiscent of Japanese stereo equipment of the '70s. Of what is the face plate of the WR-11 made? BTW, I 2nd kudos for Brian's review.

[Scooby214]

The face of the WR-1 is a combination of brushed aluminum and plastic. The silver part is an aluminum panel that separates from the grey plastic behind it. The speaker grill on the WR-1 is plastic, and the grey areas along the edge where the face meets the wood cabinet are plastic. The aluminum is thick, and holds four of the six screw posts that hold the radio together.

The WR-11 is plastic, with a metal speaker grill. The WR-11 is easier to completely disassemble than the WR-1, as the aluminum panel is rather tricky to work with. You would only need to remove the metal panel to take out the speaker, as the face plate can be removed without separating the aluminum panel from the plastic face plate.

Brian

[DanHL]

Excellent review Brian, thanks.

[k]

this review is so helpful. these are exactly the radios i was trying to decide between. this review is such a concrete comparison. i appreciate it!

[J-F]

Hello,

Interesting review!

How does the AUX work with the WR-11? Does it activate then a cable is plugged in or only when sound is sent to the unit? I wonder if I would have to plug in/plug out the cable every time I want to play music from an iPod.

Thanks!

[macdude22]

@J-F, Unfortunately the WR-11 auto cuts to the aux whenever something is plugged into the jack. One can't leave a cable plugged in to the aux-in. (if someone has a trick I haven't figured out I'm all ears) I had hoped to use this to easily listen to podcasts and radio but having to reach behind the unit every-time I want to use the iPhone is not functional. I find myself still using my little portable speaker for my phone.

I am generally pleased with the radio otherwise, in the next revision if Sangean could see fit to add a a notch on the band switch to cut in and out of aux that would be great.

[Jordan Kaye]

Interesting comparison. I purchased and had to return my Tivoli Model One because I found the reception to be just awful. I actually assumed it was a defective unit but Tivoli tested it before issuing me a refund and said it worked up to spec. I purchased the WR-11 instead. For the money I agree it's a good unit and the reception is far, far superior - which is why I'm keeping it - though I have to say I actually found the Tivoli to have livelier, more expressive, more dynamic sound when it got a good signal or with an aux input. It didn't meet up to my needs for reception but I wish it had worked out.