Koch Supernova

[angelspade]

Any of you guys owned, or spent some time with one of these? What are your impressions? What amp would you compare it to? Thanks!

 

[BSRIAudio]

I played one when they came out and thought it was a beast of an amp but exceedingly expensive. IIRC they were more expensive than a VH4.

Koch amps are underrated for high gain tones. From what I remember it was a more classic sounding high gain head. It didn't automatically sound metal like a lot of high gainers.

 

[angelspade]

I played one when they came out and thought it was a beast of an amp but exceedingly expensive. IIRC they were more expensive than a VH4.

Koch amps are underrated for high gain tones. From what I remember it was a more classic sounding high gain head. It didn't automatically sound metal like a lot of high gainers.

Thanks for the input, appreciated. I have seen a few pop up used in the $2K range...may take a chance. Hate to buy an amp That I have never tried. We shall see.

 

[Qweklain]

I was always interested in one of these, but there is not a single clip out there that I could find that does it any favors, at all. I am sure because it is so expensive that there are naturally not many who could make clips of it, but it certainly is not doing it any favors for those like myself and the OP who are/were interested.

 

[braintheory]

I’ve never been impressed with Koch’s (including the supernova). They all sound to me way too polite/not raw or aggressive, restrained and kinda distant sounding and feeling. I can see them maybe appealing to guys that like a very polished, smooth sound or some fusion players, but there are still better amps for that imo. Definitely not an amp if you want a raw or pissed off kinda sound

 

[angelspade]

I’ve never been impressed with Koch’s (including the supernova). They all sound to me way too polite/not raw or aggressive, restrained and kinda distant sounding and feeling. I can see them maybe appealing to guys that like a very polished, smooth sound or some fusion players, but there are still better amps for that imo. Definitely not an amp if you want a raw or pissed off kinda sound

I think I understand what you are saying here. Some have described the Diezel Herbert as too warm / smooth, and almost "produced" sounding. Is this what you are referring to regrading the Supernova?

 

[braintheory]

I’ve never been impressed with Koch’s (including the supernova). They all sound to me way too polite/not raw or aggressive, restrained and kinda distant sounding and feeling. I can see them maybe appealing to guys that like a very polished, smooth sound or some fusion players, but there are still better amps for that imo. Definitely not an amp if you want a raw or pissed off kinda sound

I think I understand what you are saying here. Some have described the Diezel Herbert as too warm / smooth, and almost "produced" sounding. Is this what you are referring to regrading the Supernova?

Yes basically. I personally hate how many modern amps are like that. It takes away imo that perception we get of finding some amps (especially the good vintage ones) to be magical and organic. Instead they come off to me as being restrained, filtered, neutered, sterile, clinical, etc, I can go on and on, but just not my thing

I disagree though about the Herbert being warm at all. I think guys tend to mistakenly use warm interchangeably with dark, but really warm to me is more in line with the notes having texture, depth and tonal complexity and richness, while the Herbert is the opposite of that

 

[MetalHeadMike]

I’ve never been impressed with Koch’s (including the supernova). They all sound to me way too polite/not raw or aggressive, restrained and kinda distant sounding and feeling. I can see them maybe appealing to guys that like a very polished, smooth sound or some fusion players, but there are still better amps for that imo. Definitely not an amp if you want a raw or pissed off kinda sound

I think I understand what you are saying here. Some have described the Diezel Herbert as too warm / smooth, and almost "produced" sounding. Is this what you are referring to regrading the Supernova?

Yes basically. I personally hate how many modern amps are like that. It takes away imo that perception we get of finding some amps (especially the good vintage ones) to be magical and organic. Instead they come off to me as being restrained, filtered, neutered, sterile, clinical, etc, I can go on and on, but just not my thing

I disagree though about the Herbert being warm at all. I think guys tend to mistakenly use warm interchangeably with dark, but really warm to me is more in line with the notes having texture, depth and tonal complexity and richness, while the Herbert is the opposite of that

I agree with this perception of warmth But I'd add that for me warmth also means the tone is pleasing to the ear without that strident harshness that many amps seems to have. That to me is part of what makes an amp feel/sound sterile/cold. An example of an amp that lacks warmth IMO is the Engl Savage 120. Don't get me wrong, cause despite it's somewhat cold/clinical tone, I LOVE that amp for the heavy stuff.

 

[braintheory]

I’ve never been impressed with Koch’s (including the supernova). They all sound to me way too polite/not raw or aggressive, restrained and kinda distant sounding and feeling. I can see them maybe appealing to guys that like a very polished, smooth sound or some fusion players, but there are still better amps for that imo. Definitely not an amp if you want a raw or pissed off kinda sound

I think I understand what you are saying here. Some have described the Diezel Herbert as too warm / smooth, and almost "produced" sounding. Is this what you are referring to regrading the Supernova?

Yes basically. I personally hate how many modern amps are like that. It takes away imo that perception we get of finding some amps (especially the good vintage ones) to be magical and organic. Instead they come off to me as being restrained, filtered, neutered, sterile, clinical, etc, I can go on and on, but just not my thing

I disagree though about the Herbert being warm at all. I think guys tend to mistakenly use warm interchangeably with dark, but really warm to me is more in line with the notes having texture, depth and tonal complexity and richness, while the Herbert is the opposite of that

I agree with this perception of warmth But I'd add that for me warmth also means the tone is pleasing to the ear without that strident harshness that many amps seems to have. That to me is part of what makes an amp feel/sound sterile/cold. An example of an amp that lacks warmth IMO is the Engl Savage 120. Don't get me wrong, cause despite it's somewhat cold/clinical tone, I LOVE that amp for the heavy stuff.

Yeah I think what you’re talking about is what I refer to as an amp sounding brittle like the Fryette’s, Splawns, some Engls like the Savage and Powerballs and even my CCV has some brittleness to it. It can be masked with lowering treble and adding gain and bass, but is still always there, while the vintage amps don’t have have it even if you crank the treble and presence. It still wouldn’t be the best sound for them, but those vintage Marshall’s and Boogie’s still won’t get that brittleness like many of the modern amps can have, but obviously would still get very bright

 

[angelspade]

...So, generally not a positive vibe on the Koch high-gain sounds? ....In regards to the warmth and bright / brittleness topic; That is why I have always theorized (along with other factors) that the Peavey / EVH 5150 series has always been such a staple for the higher gain stuff. Seems those amps have nearly the perfect balance of thickness and warmth in the lows and low mids....Combined with a bright / cutting (almost glassy) top-end and presence.

 

[MaxF]

@angelspade now that you seem to have had a Supernova for some time - what's your take on it?
Where does it excel, what can you compare it's character(s) to best?

 

[angelspade]

@angelspade now that you seem to have had a Supernova for some time - what's your take on it?
Where does it excel, what can you compare it's character(s) to best?

It's an interesting amplifier. Below I will summarize bullet points (let me know if you have more questions

- Most flexible amplifier I have ever owned. When you take into account the 5 channels. independent EQ, tone shaping dip switches, reverb, independent loops, full midi and the OTS function...The possibilities are almost endless

- Even with all those options, dialing it in was fairly simple after some experimentation

- Generally, this amp is very hi-fi, 3D sounding with a lot of depth, weight, available compression and a HUGE bottom end (especially when the LOW switch is engaged)

- If you don't want any "sizzle" in the presence frequencies (like a 5150 or recto) this may not be your amp. The presence is aggressive but pleasing in my opinion...But it's there, and the high gain tones sound best with some if this sizzle dialed in. That said, it can be greatly subdued by the available "high-cut" option.

- It's an amp of extremes. The clean channel has no gain knob, and is a truly pristine, piano like clean. While channel 5 (Ultra) is an absolutely over the top high gain channel that may have more available gain than any amp I have played or owned.

- Channel 2 is good for pushed sounding cleans / classic break up, channel 3 will go from AC/DC to approaching 80's style hard rock, and channel 4 starts at 80's metal and takes you into early Metallica territory

- The 3 level damping switch behaves similarly to the mid-cut option on the Diezel Herbert in my opinion. It exaggerates the lows and top end while compressing the upper mids...I really enjoy it.

- The OTS function adds some classic tube saturation-like qualities to the upper mids and makes the amp present as less modern and more traditional...I rarely use it, except on channels 2 & 3 for classic style rock.

-The mid-shift switch is interesting. My friend calls it the "Marshall Switch" because it dramatically moves the mid frequencies to the upper register and the amp behaves similar to a traditional Marshall

- This is not an overly tight, percussive sounding amp. The bottom end is thick, and the palm-mutes are big and round....But still aggressive If you are seeking that uber-modern "clanky" palm mute thing, there are better choices out there than this amp. Some that have played it told me it they felt it has "Bogner-like" low mids.

- Tonally I have never played an amp quite like it. For the high gain tones, the DNA that I hear and feel is the combination of a Diezel Herbert (exaggerated bottom end and mid-shift), original block letter Peavey 5150 (really thick low-mids and bright / sizzle in the high top) and a Mesa Triple Rectifier (a little grainy, but aggressive hi-gain characteristics)

- I run mine in a dual amp set up with a Diezel VH4. The VH4 is set up to magnify it's best qualities: dry, tight and a little boxyness to it...While the Supernova is set up more saturated with some roundness in the lows and low mids and some sizzle in the high top end...Love the combination of the two

- This is a very complex amplifier and will require a skilled tech to work on it in terms of mods or repairs. My tech here in LA who works on many high-end boutique amps did a tune up when I first acquired it and felt personally compelled to contact Dolph Koch and compliment him on the engineering and design. He called it a "masterpiece"

 

[Devin]

From that description it seems like it's probably bast amp ever


I'd love to try one

 

[angelspade]

From that description it seems like it's probably bast amp ever


I'd love to try one

Honestly...it's not for everyone. Like a lot of Hi-Fi sounding boutiques, it's pretty polarizing. Of the 10 or so players that have come by to play it. about 4 seemed blown away, 4 definitely did not like how it responded to their playing and 2 were pretty confused by it...Not sure what to think.