Boss Katana Head ......whadda we think?

xSkarloey

The quality of sound is such a subjective thing. I think anyone looking to buy one of these is going to have to try it. 

ICBM

I just checked the spec and it can't be 100W either… which is not surprising given that it's becoming disappointingly par for the course with modern amps. 77W power draw, which means it can't realistically be any more than 50W output, and probably less if it's using a lot of modelling power. And that will be maximum, not clean. So I'd guess about as loud as a 20W valve amp - which is not bad for its size, but it's not "100W" either. It might be giggable, but maybe not if you need a lot of clean headroom.

dindude

monquixote said:

Hmm not loving the sounds from that demo.

I don't get why these amps always have: "token clean channel", "channel with more gain than you will use in most non metal gigs", "channel of insane over gained metal", "channel of pure white noise and 15 chained metal zones".

Absolutely spot on. I think the answer is that it is aimed at 12 years olds, but the designers are basing it on what their 12 year old self would have wanted back in 1985.

mellowsun

Clearly for Boss the bee in a jar overdrive tone required by YouTube players is still king.

JDE

dindude said

Absolutely spot on. I think the answer is that it is aimed at 12 years olds, but the designers are basing it on what their 12 year old self would have wanted back in 1985.

Which makes it the perfect midlife crisis amp for meeee!

impmann

dindude said:

monquixote said:

Hmm not loving the sounds from that demo.

I don't get why these amps always have: "token clean channel", "channel with more gain than you will use in most non metal gigs", "channel of insane over gained metal", "channel of pure white noise and 15 chained metal zones".

Absolutely spot on. I think the answer is that it is aimed at 12 years olds, but the designers are basing it on what their 12 year old self would have wanted back in 1985.

TBH, though... we probably *aren't* the centre of the bell curve of the target market. Historically, young players make up the majority of the cheaper end of the buying market and *by-and-large* big fuckoff metaaaal toanz that sound like arse to you and I give a lot of teenage boys semis, so of course amp manufacturers will concentrate their efforts on making sounds that appeal to that demographic. These sounds sell amps in shops too, as you don't need the volume cranked to get da brootahlz. EG: Line6 "Insane" channel... utterly unsuable, god awful and beloved of young metal heads - they bought Spiders in their droves, so much so that at one new band night I did the sound for (that was a challenge) only one band out of 10 or so had an amp made by another company...

welshboyo

ICBM said:

In this YouTube demo it does actually sound better than the Waza Craft.



It's hardly "the world's first BOSS Amplifier range", though… from the 80s:

http://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/thumbs3/boss-mg-10-guitar-amplifier-469752.jpg

And it doesn't sound like the types of sound it's aimed at have changed much, even though the new ones does actually do them a lot better.

Does that say "Pull Wasp" or "Pull Warp" 

ICBM

welshboyo said:

Does that say "Pull Wasp" or "Pull Warp" 

lol

Warp, although Wasp would be more accurate .

Someone at Carlsbro thought it was a good idea to call a couple of their 80s amps the Wasp and the Hornet as well...

ThePrettyDamned

This'll put brands like Carr out of business. 

monquixote

Hasn't the whole "It's not 100w" thing been done to death?

It's not intended to output a continuous 100w square wave so it's probably fine.

Bidley

monquixote said:

Hmm not loving the sounds from that demo.

I don't get why these amps always have: "token clean channel", "channel with more gain than you will use in most non metal gigs", "channel of insane over gained metal", "channel of pure white noise and 15 chained metal zones".

Are there not little knobs that adjust the gain? If not, somebody should really invent those.

ICBM

monquixote said:

Hasn't the whole "It's not 100w" thing been done to death?

It's not intended to output a continuous 100w square wave so it's probably fine.

No, it hasn't. It's important to realise why it matters - it's not about whether it can deliver a continuous 100W square wave, it's about whether it will deliver the volume and dynamics that you should expect for a 100W amp - otherwise all power ratings are meaningless.

This is one of the main reasons modern amps are not being taken seriously - because they don't put out anything like the claimed power, and aren't remotely as loud - especially in a gig situation where how well it holds up in a mix is dependent on the same volume and dynamics - as equivalent properly-spec'ed amps.

In any case, unlike a music-programme amp (hi-fi, PA etc) a guitar amp *can* sometimes be expected to produce a continuous full distorted output - if you hold a sustained chord into feedback, for example. So the idea that you can claim that it's putting out an 'average' of the same power is simply wrong, unless it can actually do so continuously.

The only valid rating for a musical instrument amp is continuous clean sine-wave power (sometimes called RMS, although wrongly) - anything else is an exaggeration and the amp won't perform to the same level in reality.

If companies want modern amps to be taken seriously, they need to stop bullshitting about the ratings. It's getting as bad as the car audio and cheap hi-fi racket.

Bidley

Is it not taken as read that SS amps deliver less volume than valve amps? Or are you talking about something else?

ICBM

Bidley said:

Is it not taken as read that SS amps deliver less volume than valve amps? Or are you talking about something else?

Something else. Most standard solid-state amps can still be producing the rated amount of power when measured - there will usually be a difference in perceived volume compared to a similar valve amp, but the power rating is nevertheless correct.

This is about exaggerating the actual amount of power that the amp can put out, which will have an even worse effect on the perceived volume.

The idea comes from PA-type amps which are only used for a clean, full-mix music programme where the transients are far higher than the average level - usually up to around four times. So the average power output of the amp is much less than the theoretical continuous maximum. Thus, if you design the amp so it can store enough energy in the power supply to cope with the peaks, the average power output can be raised. This means that the theoretical maximum can be set at a level which couldn't be achieved if it had to be continuous - even higher than the power input to the amp sometimes. (Which would otherwise be physically impossible.) So it is legitimate to claim a power output higher than the power draw, for an amp which will only be used for programme music.

But this is not true for a musical instrument amp, especially not a guitar amp which has to produce a continuous distorted sound.

If it doesn't matter, where do you draw the line? Is it OK to describe a 10W amp as "100W" if you can get 100W out of it for a fraction of a second? Would someone who bought it because they wanted an amp with enough power to complete with a drummer be wrong to be annoyed when it couldn't?

olafgarten

Looking at Power Consumption it looks like the 100w amps only take in 77w of power, unless there is some sort of generator inside I don't see how this works. The 50w is better, it uses 47w of power.

monquixote

ICBM said:

monquixote said:

Hasn't the whole "It's not 100w" thing been done to death?

It's not intended to output a continuous 100w square wave so it's probably fine.

No, it hasn't. It's important to realise why it matters - it's not about whether it can deliver a continuous 100W square wave, it's about whether it will deliver the volume and dynamics that you should expect for a 100W amp - otherwise all power ratings are meaningless.

This is one of the main reasons modern amps are not being taken seriously - because they don't put out anything like the claimed power, and aren't remotely as loud - especially in a gig situation where how well it holds up in a mix is dependent on the same volume and dynamics - as equivalent properly-spec'ed amps.

In any case, unlike a music-programme amp (hi-fi, PA etc) a guitar amp *can* sometimes be expected to produce a continuous full distorted output - if you hold a sustained chord into feedback, for example. So the idea that you can claim that it's putting out an 'average' of the same power is simply wrong, unless it can actually do so continuously.

The only valid rating for a musical instrument amp is continuous clean sine-wave power (sometimes called RMS, although wrongly) - anything else is an exaggeration and the amp won't perform to the same level in reality.

If companies want modern amps to be taken seriously, they need to stop bullshitting about the ratings. It's getting as bad as the car audio and cheap hi-fi racket.

It's just how solid state amps power is quoted.

Valve amp power ratings are even more meaningless so I don't see why it matters. 

monquixote

Bidley said:

monquixote said:

Hmm not loving the sounds from that demo.

I don't get why these amps always have: "token clean channel", "channel with more gain than you will use in most non metal gigs", "channel of insane over gained metal", "channel of pure white noise and 15 chained metal zones".

Are there not little knobs that adjust the gain? If not, somebody should really invent those.

Yep but when channel 2 of a 4 channel amp has more gain than you would ever use at anything other than a metal gig at one on the gain dial it's  bit silly.

ICBM

olafgarten said:

Looking at Power Consumption it looks like the 100w amps only take in 77w of power, unless there is some sort of generator inside I don't see how this works. The 50w is better, it uses 47w of power.

Not really. Bear in mind a big - and probably the same for both amps - chunk will be the processing power for the preamp. I think there's an equation which will give the actual figures if you want to work it out, assuming the same fudge-factor for both amps...

Power consumption = preamp power + actual power output+10%.

At a rough guess it looks like the 50-watter is a 25W amp, the 100-watter is a 50W amp and the preamp draws about 20W, or maybe a little less than those power outputs if the power stage isn't as efficient and there are other fixed losses - maybe 20W and 40W.

And even at that, that's Class D solid-state so it will be only half as much as a valve amp of the same rated power can produce when driven into distortion. Or even a Class AB solid-state one, although it's debatable if you'd want to hear that.

Bottom line, nowhere near equivalent to the volume you would expect from the claimed power ratings.

ICBM

monquixote said:

It's just how solid state amps power is quoted.

Valve amp power ratings are even more meaningless so I don't see why it matters. 

No, sorry - wrong on both counts.

Both solid-state and valve Class AB amps have always been rated according to the continuous clean sine-wave power they can produce, usually at 1KHz and 1% THD.

The reason it matters is because if you allow companies to get away with spurious claims you end up with people buying amps that won't do the job they were bought for.

You also end up with the more insidious problem that modern-tech amps are not taken seriously because they just don't perform as well as they're expected to going on the rated power - musicians shouldn't need to know that you have to reverse-engineer the figures to work out how loud a claimed power output will be in reality.

The only company I can think of who get it is Blackstar - their Class D amps are as loud as equivalent valve amps (more or less), because they have deliberately made them capable of double the claimed power.


… rather than half.

monquixote

ICBM said:

monquixote said:

It's just how solid state amps power is quoted.

Valve amp power ratings are even more meaningless so I don't see why it matters. 

No, sorry - wrong on both counts.

Both solid-state and valve Class AB amps have always been rated according to the continuous clean sine-wave power they can produce, usually at 1KHz and 1% THD.

The reason it matters is because if you allow companies to get away with spurious claims you end up with people buying amps that won't do the job they were bought for.

You also end up with the more insidious problem that modern-tech amps are not taken seriously because they just don't perform as well as they're expected to going on the rated power - musicians shouldn't need to know that you have to reverse-engineer the figures to work out how loud a claimed power output will be in reality.

The only company I can think of who get it is Blackstar - their Class D amps are as loud as equivalent valve amps (more or less), because the have deliberately made them capable of double the claimed power.


… rather than half.

Yes, but the clean power of a valve amp is meaningless because people don't run them clean. 

For both solid state amps and valve amps the clean sine wave power is of little or no use.