Sangean WR-12 Is So Bad It Seems Defective

My Sangean WR-12 arrived today and it's as bad as other people say it is. The FM tuning dial is grossly inaccurate. 88.1 for example is found around 87 and so on. The FM is hideous. Nothing locks in and everything drifts. 

What I hate most about FM is that when you tune you hear a boom and a thunder rattling you as if the radio were defective. However, since 4 other readers reported similar woeful FM reception, I believe this is how the sad beast is built. 

AM is fine.

The sound is muffled and bass heavy.

This is the worst Sangean I've ever owned, especially at this price point.

I've already printed my Amazon return forms. 

Final Thoughts

How could Sangean let this go on the market? Couldn't they see this is a stain on their reputation? 

Also, I looked forward to doing a review but it's so bad it's not worthy of my time. I've got it boxed up, wrapped and in the trunk. It goes to Amazon Returns tomorrow. 

Finally, Paul wants to know if this says it's made in China or Taiwan. I looked in the back and could not see any designation, but I could have missed it in my haste to box it up and send it off. Does anyone know where this was built?

Comments

[Gary]

Jeff - It's unfortunate how many Sangean radio models have muffled, bass-heavy sound. The WR-2 is a pleasant exception, with crisp highs, decent bass, and full-range bass and treble controls. Unfortunately, its reception is not as good as its sound.

The WR-12 sounds like a dog, with bad sound and bad reception, based on all of the negative reviews on this site. This is pretty sad for a $160 radio.

I hope you and the other WR-12 reviewers will post their reviews on Amazon, where they will be most visible to others and to Sangean.

[herculodge]

Gary, I love dogs. This radio is worse than a dog. It's an overpriced embarrassment to Sangean brand. I agree with the muffled line of their radios. I put up a quick WR-12 "review" on Amazon just now.

[Paul]

Made in China or made in Taiwan?

[Scooby214]

My WR-1 has a pleasant sound, in spite of not having bass and treble controls. My WR-11, which seems to be a newer version of the WR-1, had the slightly muffled sound in comparison. Its FM tuning scale was also noticeably off, while the WR-1 had an accurate scale. I took the two radios apart, and found that the difference was in the speakers themselves. I switched the speakers between the WR-1 and the WR-11, and the sound of the WR-11 was vastly improved. It was also easy to correct the accuracy of the WR-11's tuning by adjusting a trimmer on the tuning capacitor. I ended up keeping the original speakers in each radio, as I like the WR-1's looks better.

It's a shame that the newer radios aren't as good as the original WR-1 and WR-2. One shouldn't need to make any adjustments or changes to radios at this price point. They should sound terrific out of the box.

[herculodge]

Paul, I thought of you and squinted at the back of the radio with my near sighted vision and I did not see either designation.

[Paul]

ok thanks ...

[Keith Beesley]

That's unfortunate. I have never been displeased with a Sangean product, but now I'll think twice before buying any more. Hopefully they will fix the problems in a subsequent production run.

[Ante]

Jeff:
I feel your pain; I had the exact same problem with their new analogue Sangean PR D6. The radio was a pure disgrace. What in the World is going on with Sangean? Do they have a new manufacturer, or what? If they continue this way, they will be soon out of business.

[Bob C.]

It's disheartening to read these reviews about what looked like a promising new product. With all of the technology available to manufacture a great radio, it is an unmitigated shame that Sangean chose instead to phone it in with this one. Other radios have suffered from initial production issues and those issues eventually doomed those models. That's because - even after the model was improved - the bad taste from initial reviews never went away.

Although it's hardly the same type of radio, I still have my hopes up for the new C Crane CC Pocket. However, Sangean is making me nervous about it.

[Some Dude]

Do you have any suggestions for decent alternatives in terms of style & size but with better quality sound and reception?

[herculodge]

Sangean WR-3, WR-2, and WR-11 are all twice as good.

[¾ Blind]

Sangean's WR-3 seems to get positive reviews. I wonder why Sangean couldn't transplant the WR-3's radio into the WR-12's cabinet, replace the digital tuner with analog tuner, and perhaps delete the WR-3's CD player to reduce mechanical complexity. (Isn't the CD a dying format anyway?) I wonder at what price point such a radio would land and whether the masses would buy it. I know I would. I am still using a 12-year old Kloss Model 88 as table radio of choice but am always on the lookout for a replacement should the need arise.

[JD]

I'll second the recommendation that people consider the WR-3. After three years of heavy service it continues to provide excellent sound and noise-free reception of distant stations on AM and both local and distant stations on FM. The CD controls, on the other hand, are pretty well limited to insert-and-play, and the remote control has very little range.

[Gary]

Jeff - Did you try using the bass and treble controls on the WR-12 to improve the sound quality? The tone controls on the WR-2 have quite a bit of range, and can really help adjust the sound quality to one's preference. From your description of the WR-12, it sounds like the bass needs to be turned way down and the treble needs to be turned up, but maybe the sound quality is just a lost cause.

In any event, it sounds like the FM reception is no good.

[herculodge]

Even with bass all the way down, the speakers are a muffled mess, coupled with extremely bad FM reception.