KATANA COMPARISON - Gen 3 vs original. The difference was astounding.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- You might think that the new Katana Gen 3 would be better than the previous versions. Maybe not. In comparing the new Gen 3 with my original Katana, the clean channel on the original was much louder with more bass than the Gen 3. What do you think?
0:00 Intro
0:21 EQ settings
0:38 First sample
1:28 Differences discussed
1:54 Matching the EQ and volume
2:10 Conclusion
I owned the original katana 50 watt then I sold it and bought a 100 watt gen. 2. I just assumed that it would sound the same just with more features. It doesn't sound the same. I have never been able to get a tone as good on the newer one as I did on the original. I have several nice tube amps and have played for over 30 years and my hears are fairly good. But since I no longer own the original I couldn't do a side by side. Even though you are comparing the gen. 3 I feel confident that you just confirmed what I thought was true. They are making running changes between the models. Thank you for making this video.
You are welcome!
the clarity with the gen 3 is much better.
Interesting. But for me the new Katana is also much much clearer and sounds way better and more balanced. The older Katana sounds too mid and low end heavy and muffled. To me at any rate. Thanks for this it is the most useful comparison video I have heard so far. I would definitely take the Gen 3, volume issue notwithstanding.
Most of the reviews I've seen so far are pretty positive with little critique. I will be posting another video about using the Gen 3 for recording. There are issues, maybe not for everyone, but issues nonetheless.
Thanks David for your video!
Could you please indicate if the USB interface is class compliant? I would like to Connect it to an iPad for recording/looping
Totally agree. Gen 3 sounds much more detailed and I wouldn't say it lacks lows, just the original has too much of it. I wonder how much of it is due to stock speaker, hence looking forward for Gen3 vs 1 head comparison using same cab.
That’s funny… most of the complaints I heard about the earlier Katana are thinness of sound. Thing is that if “too much bass” is the issue, you can always roll off the bass and low-mids (via the app). And if you find the amp too loud? I’ve never ever heard anyone describe a Katana that way til now, but there are controls for that too.
But it happens that the earlier Katanas, while not being perfect jazz amps, are sufficiently good jazz amps.
I upgraded from the original to gen 3 EX with the upgraded speaker. The difference is so clear
Are you noticing any difference in volume with the clean channel? Is it the same as the original?
I still have the Mk1 50 watt and that little sucker is loud with a decent amount of low end, I was contemplating the new Gen 3, but I think you just saved me a bundle!
Yup. The Gen 3 isn't for everybody.
Wow..thats mind-blowing..I hope Boss checks this out.
My guess is, what you hear is what Boss intended (for whatever reason).
Very interesting comparison, thanks for doing this. The original version has more darker sound perhaps? I have been interested in this amp, will put in my list now. Cheers!!
Thanks for watching!
Dear David, glad to hear you are in good health. (this is an epistolary greeting from the 19th century)). It seems to me that the reason is due to the dynamics being played out. The old combo amplifier has a more powerful speaker and its losses due to piston vibrations are much less (friction in the centering washer and the upper corrugated suspension). When I was young, DIY musicians would “intensively break in” the speakers before installing them in a cabinet or combo. This dramatically liberated the response in the lower register of the instrument and expanded the dynamics of the game. If you need it, I will describe the method.
But that is not all. To my ear, the sound of the old combo is slightly dedamped, but also more interesting.
It would be useful to compare the combos, changing the speakers there, and at the same time the connecting wires in both devices with better ones. There are some tricks there too. It is possible that speakers have a decisive role in the quality and difference of sound. I can describe everything to you in more detail if you want to tinker with it.
I clearly hear that the old combo interacts better with the design of the acoustic screen (cabinet). This is also a sign of different quality factors of the oscillating system (speaker +
acoustic screen). The new combo has been noticed to have slightly brighter high-mid sounds, and this may give results during testing. but the sound is VERY different.
For this reason I will listen to your thoughts.
I think you are correct about the new speaker not being broken in. I had not thought of that! If this was a more expensive amp, such as a tube amp, I would play around with swapping speakers (or tubes if there were any). I think I've found a work around with the volume issue, unfortunately it involves connecting the amp to a computer or paying extra for a bluetooth adapter.
@@anotherheadlessdemo David, “the master is the master” - Google will not translate this saying. This means that the will of the owner (owner) is the law. But your neglect of semiconductor amplification, in my experience, is not always true. Yes, such systems are cheaper, but in most cases they sound even a little better than a real lamp. As for the output stage and matching with the speaker, the transistor is BETTER, but it should be used in the name of sound quality, and not squeeze out maximum properties on the display of soulless devices. Everything will be interesting if you set your goal beautifully and correctly. As one of my bosses joked, a man begins where he does something unprecedented.
The devil knows how this soulless translator program will translate it. But the main thing is the goodwill of your reading. :-).
I would like to hear your speaker tips if don't mind!
@@Fox-86 To understand your specific task, I am forced to clarify the question: are you going to select a loudspeaker head from those offered for sale, change its sound, or make a correct comparison?
Does this mean that the Kaana Gen 2 50 is not loud enough for stage work such as a pub gig?
I'm sure it would be ok in a small club. However, you might need to use a clean boost or access the "Solo" button in the software if you want to use the clean or pushed channels. Crunch, Lead and Brown are plenty loud.
Also, I'm shipping the Gen 3 back to Sweetwater today.
How do they compare in a live band? In the video I would guess the gen 3 cuts better? Although with UA-cam you never know . In the past I purchased an amp based on UA-cam videos but when I actually played through it I couldn't get a sound I liked. Thank You for the video.
I've never had a problem with the original not cutting though the mix. Maybe I should have done a segment where I matched the original with the Gen 3? :)
Thanks for the vid, I'm hoping that someone will put them back to back thru a spectrum analyzer at some point.
That would be interesting.
Thank you for the comparison. Maybe big part of the difference could be explained because the old speaker is much more "broken" rather than a new one very stiff which will need hours and hours of playing before a direct comparison makes sense. So not exactly apple with apple... or ?
That could very well be. Usually though, it's the tone that changes as a speaker gets broken in and not the volume.
So i guess now we get the honest reviews of the Katana gen 1.
Ill just wait a few years for the honest reviews of the Katana gen 3 ;)
I know it was a phone but I really heard more upper harmonic content from the Gen 3. Maybe the extra bass was masking it???
no, the Gen 3 is not compressed like the original. The creator of this video PERCEIVES the original to be louder, but it's not. It's more compressed. Compression creates the perception of loudness. In fact, they are equally loud, but the Gen 3 has far more range between its loudest and quietest sound. That is one of the reasons it's far more articulate and can sound more bright and isn't drowning in low end.
On the original, the high frequencies and the low frequencies are all tightly compressed into the middle, so it sounds bass heavy, and muddled without much articulation and brightness. It also creates the impression of loudness.
I think you needed to be in the room when this was recorded. The original was clearly louder. I think the iPhone tends to try and even out sounds (or so I've read) and it does the same kind of thing when using the camera.
@@anotherheadlessdemo Oh you mean it applies compression? haha. I've got a Gen 3 and MK II beside me right now. It's just dynamic range. Psychoacoustics is a crazy thing!
I had the MK2 2x12, the USB-A cord port broke rendering all updates and software useless. I tried to solder a new one it but it was too broken. The Spark40 is honestly more user friendly and built better.
That sucks about the USB cable! Funny about the Spark 40 though; I bought one a couple of years ago and it died within 9 months. Did Positive Grid replace it (it was under warranty)? No, they didn't. After multiple emails they never did send me instructions on how and where to return it and stopped responding to my emails. It's now a $250 paper weight.
(through Bose headset) original had a more tube like quality in tone. Gen3 crisper.. This why the some say the Clean Channel is where all your sounds need to be built from....CLEAN is Mean! lol
Yes! I never use the Lead or Brown settings and rarely do I use the Crunch. I don't play the kind of music that requires any of that. All I need is the Clean with a crisp setting or on the edge of break-up (usually I use a pedal for that).
Mk1 sounds better..tone is everything
so which one do you like more
I haven't decided yet!
looks like you ran the Gen3 at half power(25W). Maybe thats why the Mk1 (does not habe the Power select) is much louder...? Or did you compare against the Mkll?
Both were running at 1/2 power, although the labeling is different. The original says "25 watts" and the Gen 3 says "HALF." No idea why they changed that.
Gen 3 sounds a lot more like a crisp tube amp. Original is kind of middy thudy.
I'm actually sending the Gen 3 back to Sweetwater. It has two crucial drawbacks, at least for me.
I took mine back before the 30 day trial ended. Katanas are decent amps but not for everyone. The Boss Nextone series doesn't get the love but it's way closer to a real old school tube amp. I have the Artist model which is way better than Katana. The Roland Blues Cube Artist is also a far superior option--
The Gen 3 is far brighter. In comparison, the old model sounded to me like it had a towel draped over it.
I couldn't find the words - definitely like a towel over it.
That sound can be easily rectified by changing the EQ. When I've played live or recorded with the original, I've never thought of it sounding like a towel was draped over it!
@@anotherheadlessdemo Of course. But the video does at least serve to reveal Boss's claim that the Gen 3 series have been 'improved' in terms of brightness and clarity. I'm interested in comparisons like this as I have a Mk2 and want to see if upgrading to a Gen 3 would be worthwhile.
I'm not sure why they wanted the tone brighter. They already added the variation button on the MKII which offers a much brighter version of all the sounds. The sound of the MKI in IRL doesn't sound muffled to me, it sounded bigger, more resonant, like the difference between running an amp through a 2x12 or 4x12 vs the normally more boxy and thin 1x12 sound. It did have more low mid which made it really easy to get round, warm tones like Hendrix, SRV, or Wes Montgomery, even a Mastodon sound with the gain up.
The mk1 was good.. the rest could be good if the patches where compatible backwards. Also YT people who sell settings has broken the fun to me.. I use it as a normal old skool amp 😎🎸
That's how I use my Mk1 - old school! At one point I downloaded "Sneaky Amps" settings, but never really used them.
Nice comparison but what is crazy about it, is the first comparison like this that I saw this guy ( Juca) who said that the Gen 3 had much more output than the MK2 but he was running them line in and actually it sounded like the MK2 was much louder as you are saying on your video. Now the crazy part is that on your video you said the MK2 is louder but I think the Gen 3 sounded louder clearer and much better overall as someone else has mentioned.
I have an Artist MK2 and am trading up for the Artist gen 3 so I was concerned when I saw the video where the MK2 sounded better but he said it's only because he overcompensated for the Mk2"s lower output. But trust me, when I do the trade in I'm going to a/b them before I leave the store!
I have a feeling i will be leaving with the Gen3. Thanks for the comparison.
Gen 3 is louder.
the mkll was not the original. the video says original vs gen 3 not mkll vs gen3
@@CitizenSoldier500 Hmm, yes you are correct. My mistake.
@@nightworkband7715 i only knew because i have the mk ll. i watched another video on the comparison and the gen 3 was massively quieter
@@CitizenSoldier500 You more than likely watched the same video that I mentioned in my post. JUCA did the very first comparison of the MK2 and the Gen 3 and he kept saying that the Gen 3 was much louder but I commented to him that it sounded like the opposite was true. He said because he was going line in he had to adjust for the MK to be louder so people could hear a proper tone comparison but he said he overcompensated which made it sound like the MK2 was louder when in fact he says the Gen 3 is definitely louder. Please check if that was the video you are referring to and let me know.
By the way, Juca commented above reiterating his thoughts.
I guess the only way I really know is when i a/b them
IMO It's not about loudness. Gen 3 definitely has less mids (not bass) that's why it's perceived quieter. Most of the loudness comes from mid range.
The original may have more bass, but it also sounds like there's something covering the speaker compared to the gen 3. The open, clarity of the new one wins over the dead sounding original.
What you like more" is all subjective.
I know, right? You can see that in this thread. Some like the crispness of the Gen3 and others like how the original compressed the sound.
wonder if the speakers are the same
Good question. I've read that Boss decided to change the Gen 3 "from the ground up." I'll bet the speaker was changed as well.
Now line 6 has to make catalyst 2.
They already did! Catalyst Cx.
@@BigSifu67 thanks I had no idea because boss is king at guitar center haven't seen much line 6 amps anyway which is better amp? Boss gen 3 or line 6 cx?
@@quit293 I liked both. but I stuck with Katana. It is so much easier to use. The Catalyst 100 had some great out of the box tones, but everything is on these rotary dials I found a bit hard to read. Boss Katana is so much easier to dial in, especially if you're not a tech person. I am still using my MK1 Artist, great amp!
@@BigSifu67 thanks for info I really appreciate it!!
@quit293 I think you're right about Boss and Guitar Center. I would love to play through a Catalyst, but there hasn't been one at my GC since they were first introduced.
The original is NOT louder. It is more compressed and is lacking in dynamic range. That is why the Gen 3 sounds SO much better. A large part of compression, is the perception of loudness. The lowest and highest frequencies are compressed into the middle which is also why you think it has more bass.
These are all very undesirable characteristics. There are times where compression is desired, but that's what the compression effect is for, it should not be on all the time.
What you've done by increasing the volume on Gen 3 is raised the "floor" on the higher Dynamic range Gen 3 so that it's equal to the MKI.
Psychoacoustics are a heck of a thing and they can confuse a lot of people.
I think if you had been in the room when I recorded this, you might have a different opinion as to the loudness of the original. It was brutally loud!
Save the money, get a Gen2 Artist and it will sound better than any Katana except the Gen 3 Artist
That would be fine unless you don't need 100-watts and your'e done carrying around a 40 lb plus amplifier!
The Gen 3 sounds so much better. The original sounds muddy in comparison.
After playing through it for the last few days, I think the Gen 3 clean channel sounds weak. The original sounds fuller to me, and with a little tweaking, can have the clarity of the Gen 3. If i want the Gen 3 to sound as full, I need to access the "Solo" function, which is only available in the software. Very annoying.
Try using your tone controls, and in-app EQ
If you gigged with these two, the new one would sound WAY better live or in any band setting. It'll sit in the mix much better due to its increased presence and leaner bass than the old one which will sound muddier.