Just took delivery of the Red Wine Audio 30.2 and-


...and this thing is quite miraculous really. Have recently had the Lavardin IS Reference and Shindo Aurieges/Montille combo in house played over Living Voice IBXR2's via Auditorium 23 speaker cables with a Lector CDP 0.6T mk. 2 player-- and let me tell you, this little Red Wine punches like Mike Tyson and sings like Callas.
Specifics? Yah-- I got yer specifics right here... tight DEEP bass (I mean it-- frightening!), black backgrounds, wiiiide soundstage (the sidewalls are alive with the sound of music yada yada)Defined/refined treble (supposed to get better with age-- 100 hrs or so). Shall I continue? Thank you.
A breezy user interface, sharp looks, a crisp feel to the volume control/solid build in general and no need for a Fatboy Electraglide mk. 8 SE power cord etc. This amp is thus far dynamic, detailed and refined.
Criticisms? So far a few minor ones. It could be-- and I mean could maybe be... a hair brighter balanced. The treble's all there in spades, though it's certainly a shade darker than the Shindo gear for example (which for my taste-- may be a hair too tipped up tonally-- so what 'the tonal truth' is here... only Harry Pearson knows).
The RWA is punchier and more alive than the Lavardin (as promised by the Vinnster), with perhaps a broader soundstage and a bit more dynamics-- yah--not quite as sleepy-- which was perhaps my only niggle with that otherwise splendid amplifier.
Finally, in the way of niggling, I myself might like even finer gradations on the volume control for those times with a string quartet when you'd like juuuuuust a WEEE bit more volume to make it sound live-- but not a whole lot. Incidentally, the remote is super small and cutie and functions like a charm-- perfect.
Now the kicker--- I have a Manley Stingray enroute to my home as I type this and that comparison should be REAL interesting.
I shall rid myself of the loser, and that means yes-- as phenomenal as this RWA 30.2 is so far-- if tubes give it a sound trouncing-- back to Vinnie it shall go within the alloted trial period (and dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out etc).
I am very interested to hear the tonal differences, as I thought the Shindo stuff would be richer etc. and perhaps the opposite is true. Incidentally- both the Shindo stuff and the RWA are quite pacey and involving-- high on my priority list. Havent listened to many great piano recordings with the RWA as yet-- and this is one of my true tests in terms of tone/density and all that jazz. Perhaps tonight.. I'm praying for density and not just leading edge flash n' tinkle.
But even still-- the sheer convenience of the thing--the elegance/simplicity of the design and the direct and uneventful way in which it goes about the business of DOING its business... is something rare-- certainly at this price point.
It isnt often I like the sonic signature of components a certain Head Moonie recommends (IMHO often a touch on the squeaky clean and bright side or possessed of, to me anyhoo, idiosyncratic tonal signatures-- at least in the past)-- but on this one I wholeheartedly agree. If I were to review the RWA amp in two words or less after only a single day of hearing thing, I would write: NO JOKE.
The RWA 30.2 is thus far cutting a good deal of mustard. One day of ownership though doesnt quite cut the ketchup in terms of the credibility of this opinion and so we shall see what tomorrow holds; the Stingray, the power, pride and prejudice of Evanna Manley and Bob Neill, my own sonic pleasure, and the very existence (in my home anyway) of the RWA amp hang in the balance...

(too much? Dramatic though-- you gotta admit- I was on my lunch hour. Well.. better than just saying Vinnie's a friggin' genius and the RWA is really err.... good so far:)
abramsmatch
Musicus53/Jwarmbrand, what cables are you/your friend using? I use the Auditorium 23 speaker cables with fabulous results, still searching for an interconnect though.
I too am wondering about this upgrade from the SIG 30 to the SIG 30.2.
I loved the sound of the SIG 30(in system for 4 months) but when i put back in my WRIGHT WPA 3.5 SET amps into service i couldn't get myself to swap back. The RWA is an awesome amp and it was just lacking some things that the Wright was doing correctly to my ears. Now if this SIG 30.2 can take the huge step towards that SET sound as the SIG 30 was getting close to achieving, well then we have my unit going back to Vinnie at RWA for an upgrade. I don't need the headache of tubes in my life. The Sig 30 was close but it wasn't THERE. So if anyone can comment on this i would be grateful!
The 30.2 is not identical to my Yamamoto A-08S which shall stand in as one example for a superior modern low-power SET.

But I'd say that the 30.2 now is playing "on the level" with it. Bass is far better as you'd expect and it's actually warmer.

The Yamamoto has more energy in the mid to upper treble and when it comes to that vocal sex thing (whatever you want to call it but I reckon we all know what I mean by it), it still has the edge over the 30.2.

The big flipside of course is that the RWA uses

- no tubes
- can drive speakers the Yamamoto can't even dream about

Which, to me and at the end of the day, makes the 30.2 a SET-like (but not SET-same) and nearly universal recommendation. But it's not the same yet and perhaps never will be since, I believe, part of the SET magic is a certain unpredictable non-linear behavior which someone, elsewhere, called "artificial intelligence". By which he described SET -typical behavior where the amp carves out the lead vocals while it sets back the accompaniment a bit in importance.

That kind of editorializing the Signature 30.2 does not do and I don't think any transistor amp will (unless, perhaps, it's got high output impedance *and* an output transformer)...
Does anyone have any comments on the amp version (sans attenuator) of the 30.2?.

I would be looking to run it with a Bent Audio TVC and wondering if the voicing of the integrated version versus the amp only version would be the same or different. I really like the "warm" voicing of the integrated version (with built-in Goldpoint attenuator), however I prefer the "silent" operation (no major mechanical moving parts - hence no mechanical noise) of the Bent TVC (which incorporates an optical encoded volume control with remote and reed relay switching of the autoformer winding). Also, the Bent TVC allows volume graduations of 1db for very fine control, which is especially handy with high efficiency speakers such as my Zu Druids.

I have tried the integrated version and was able to utilize the Bent TVC with the 30.2's internal Goldpoint attenuator set at max (or lower). I thought that the 30.2 sounded warmer and just as transparent operating with it's own internal attenuator than with the TVC. However, the integrated version has an input Z of 20K while the amp only version has an input of 100K. I'm wondering if the difference in input impedance betweeen the two versions of the 30.2 would have an effect on the voicing with the TVC in line.

Also, it seems that if Vinnies's Isabella tube pre ends up being a winner (as is the 30.2) then the amp only version of the 30.2 would seem a logical way to go as it would allow for the eventual insertion of the Isabella.

Any comments appreciated.

Cheers,
David
Orjazzm,

Don't laugh, but I've been using the Jeff Day (6moons) "white lightning" diy interconnect and speaker cables and they work very well!

-Jeff