It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
However, once you wind the gain up on the dirty amp modes, that thickness soon turns into mushiness and a slappy, woolly attack.
I think they're the best thing since sliced bread, both the 50 as a portable do-it-all unit with great effects built in, and the head for a powerful no-faff unit which I've matched with a nice vintage Celestion.
Blind testers seem to think so too...
My only conclusion is mine was for some reason made from a distillation of unicorn hooves and blessed by a Shinto priest with the tone of the gods.
They're not good amps against all amps, but they do offer a lot for £190 and are raising the bar at that end of the market, which is a good thing.
If you're on a budget, they are a great option to have. If budget isn't a concern, you have plenty more options.
However, it is definitely not an analog amp, it is digital, driven by programmable digital sound processors.
The effects are digital, but so are some of your pedals and you don't need to use them.
It grinds my gears when people mix solid state with modeling. Modeling is a computerised version of an amp where the signal is digitised and altered. Solid state is a silicon circuit, where the signal remains analog, the same as a tube amp.
Here's a video that explains it in more detail
Why were they so tight on the number of amp models, if they are just digital. Strange.
Both of them sound absolutely dire.
What was most interesting is that neither of them cleaned up properly with the guitar volume, which is something I did notice with the only Friedman I've played - it just got quieter without really cleaning up, which is odd.
And the supposedly "clean" sound on both of them wasn't clean... it was appalling, especially on the Friedman (at 11'22") - that was when I thought it was clear which was which, because it was more dynamic even though the clipping was really nasty.
(Sorry, typo'd that at first!)
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
The rollback test I reckon was a bit of a deliberate red herring, by picking a valve amp that they knew didn't clean up very well. Might be why they concentrated on that aspect for most of the video.
I think they're excellent for the money. Though the 100w is significantly better sounding than the 50w. Have used a head and cab version in a rehearsal room too and whilst it doesn't dominate in a room filling way like a valve amp would it was mighty enough to be heard well in the mix with a loud full band.
Takes pedals amazingly well on the clean channel. Even some of the onboard fx are very useable on a set and forget, i.e. the reverb, light chorus.
I think the heavy channels were a bit synthetic sounding but i wouldn't use them personally how i play.
I don't think the fx loop for 4 cable method pedal set ups was too good on the one i had. Perhaps the 2x12 would have a bit more headroom.
I think the low end range in these is particular great. Against similar amp specs and prices the low end is where i think others suffer i.e. Fender Mustang in particular. There just comes a point where they just start rattling and buzzing. The Katana feels built in a way that it can handle it.
If i had enough spare cash to try it i think 2 x Katana's in stereo would be great. Particularly as i'm swaying away from valves again.