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

(Re-post)

 

 

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

[Angelo]

Ebay 200747495665
This looks like a good price. This radio has some really good reviews----sold for mid $200s new and even used, usually goes for over 100. Very tempting price here.

[herculodge]

Angelo, that Sony is not sensitive with horrible FM. I sold mine 4 years ago or so.

[Angelo]

Glad I didn't pull the trigger on it then!

[Keith Rennie]

That was an excellent review Brian.
Love the pics too.
I've had the opportunity to try the Tivoli and I was not impressed either.
Lots good is said about the Sangeans and the U1, LunchBox and pocket radios I own of theirs are some of my favourite.
Will pick up a WR when a good bargain come along.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Keith

[Jack Marshall]

I had a first-generation Tivoli Model One that I loved (and gave to a family member who admired it, too). When I replaced it with a second-generation model that had stereo output to the earphones and the "aux" selector switch, I was extremely disappointed that it exhibited the same hiss Brian describes here.

Really too bad, particularly given that the list price increased fifty percent. What had been a wonderful little radio was rendered unlistenable (to me), thanks to the "improvements."