KSR Juno vs Revv Generator 100P

  • Thread starter Thread starter team13chad
  • Start date Start date
team13chad

team13chad

Active member
Anyone have experience with both?

I have a Juno now but I also have a 100P on the way.

I may only keep one and was curious for feedback.

I play heavy hard rock/metal and so far this Juno is insane.
 
When does your Revv arrive? I have a Generator 120 on order, should ship within the next month. I'm also super curious of KSR amps as well.

Is the Juno supposed to be a more British flavored KSR? How do you like it for good ol' 80's thrash?
 
Meeotch":2mx0h6v1 said:
When does your Revv arrive? I have a Generator 120 on order, should ship within the next month. I'm also super curious of KSR amps as well.

Is the Juno supposed to be a more British flavored KSR? How do you like it for good ol' 80's thrash?
Click to expand...

Dude. Amazingly.
 
Juno is sick for thrash. I’d say the 100p has a much more pronounced and chimey top end.
 
I had a Revv 120 and a KSR Ares back to back
they feel quite different
The KSR gain had bigger grains of sand. The low end is phatter. Kind of like a Rectifier but more polished and refined.
The Revv ch4 was a closer comparison to the Ares. Your 100P is based off of the ch3, which to me was much closer to a Modded Marshall thing- flip that contour and bright up and it gets very cameron/fortin-ish in its immediate attack. The low end was seemingly not enough, but in reality, it is really tight and sits in a mix perfectly. That tight low end takes a post eq really well to bring back the thunder if needed. If I plugged into an amp with no pedals, the Revv would be the clear choice.

They each had bright switches. The Revv was more aggressive in affecting the tone like a tube screamer set to 0 gain. The KSR did it too but with less drastic effect- which could be a good thing. The Revv mode switches really delivered a wide range of sounds.

The Revv clean and crunch were each stellaer in their own right.

The Ares mid and low gain worked but I did not feel inspired by it- for me that amp sounded great on the high gain and the different shades. Felt amazing. But not for lo gain.

The Revv felt more transparent in terms of hearing everything you played without mercy. This can be a great thing too, but much different compared to the feel of the KSR.

Both amps were awesome. Hope that kind of helps even though neither is the model you seek info on.
 
crankyrayhanky":2slmda67 said:
I had a Revv 120 and a KSR Ares back to back
they feel quite different
The KSR gain had bigger grains of sand. The low end is phatter. Kind of like a Rectifier but more polished and refined.
The Revv ch4 was a closer comparison to the Ares. Your 100P is based off of the ch3, which to me was much closer to a Modded Marshall thing- flip that contour and bright up and it gets very cameron/fortin-ish in its immediate attack. The low end was seemingly not enough, but in reality, it is really tight and sits in a mix perfectly. That tight low end takes a post eq really well to bring back the thunder if needed. If I plugged into an amp with no pedals, the Revv would be the clear choice.

They each had bright switches. The Revv was more aggressive in affecting the tone like a tube screamer set to 0 gain. The KSR did it too but with less drastic effect- which could be a good thing. The Revv mode switches really delivered a wide range of sounds.

The Revv clean and crunch were each stellaer in their own right.

The Ares mid and low gain worked but I did not feel inspired by it- for me that amp sounded great on the high gain and the different shades. Felt amazing. But not for lo gain.

The Revv felt more transparent in terms of hearing everything you played without mercy. This can be a great thing too, but much different compared to the feel of the KSR.

Both amps were awesome. Hope that kind of helps even though neither is the model you seek info on.
Click to expand...



Fantastic explanation. Thanks!
 
KSR amps generally need a separate EQ to get the most out of the crunch sound. That's why Satch added a 3rd EQ to his Gemini. The Colossus and Juno have the best crunch tones, and probably the Artemis that has the dedicated crunch channel. The Colossus crunch is more on the low gain side, whereas the lead channels with the gain boost off are more similar to the Juno's crunch.
 
Interesting.
For reference, I don't really dig a Mesa low crunch sound either.
I do dig a Marshall lo crunch tone. Probably something like low mids vs hi mids and where they sit in the amp.

That Juno is supposed to have more of a Marshally sound compared to his other amps, so very curious how this develops! I'm sure it's going to be bad ass
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top