the clarity with the gen 3 is much better.

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.

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.

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!

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!!

Wow..thats mind-blowing..I hope Boss checks this out.

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.

lower the precense on the gen 3 and maybe the treble. In a live or recording session youd rather have less bass...usually at least in your mix, and let the bass guitar handle that. low freq add up quick

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 upgraded from the original to gen 3 EX with the upgraded speaker. The difference is so clear

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 ?

Thanks for the vid, I'm hoping that someone will put them back to back thru a spectrum analyzer at some point.

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.

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???

The Gen 3 is far brighter. In comparison, the old model sounded to me like it had a towel draped over it.

Does this mean that the Kaana Gen 2 50 is not loud enough for stage work such as a pub gig?

(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

The MK is older. Speaker is broken in. Pretty simple

How do they compare in a live band? In the video I would guess the gen 3 cuts better? Although with KZfaq you never know . In the past I purchased an amp based on KZfaq videos but when I actually played through it I couldn't get a sound I liked. Thank You for the video.

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 😎🎸

The Gen 3 sounds much more raw and natural than the MK2

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.

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?

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.

Mk1 sounds better..tone is everything

wonder if the speakers are the same

so which one do you like more

Now line 6 has to make catalyst 2.

What you like more" is all subjective.

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.

Save the money, get a Gen2 Artist and it will sound better than any Katana except the Gen 3 Artist

The Gen 3 sounds so much better. The original sounds muddy in comparison.

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.