Incredibly Under-rated

You can read gobs of info online about the KH 100's, 55's, KHR's K-Tre's, etc. But there is scarce info on this sleeping beast, and I can't figure out why.

I'm absolutely stunned at how incredibly versatile this amp is. All of the typical Rivera buzzwords certainly apply in this case - "Fendery Cleans", "Marshall-meets-Mesa distortion", "Clear and quiet operation". I hate to sound like another overly-positive reviewer parroting other user's enthusiastic musisings, but I simply must agree.

I come from the single-channel-Marshall type world, and am used to being able to get all of the gain and clean tones I need from careful volume-pot adjustments on my guitar. Every other high-gain, multi-channel, modern style amp I've tried seems to sacrifice the touch-sensitivity that I've gotten so used to for more options and buttons. From my experience, a guitar which cleans up beautifully through a JMP or JCM800 will get muddy and lifeless through a mega-channel-gain-monster type amp. Sure, a 4-channel Boogie or JVM IS versatile, but to really get the most out of those kinds of amps I find myself tap-dancing all the time, trying to get the varying levels of breakup that other amps can easily achieve with slight volume adjustments. That's not to say you can't operate a Rivera in much the same way - with footswitchable boosts on both channels it's definitely set up for that, but I find that once you get either channel dialed in JUST RIGHT, you'll never want to plug the footswitch in.

I primarily use channel 2, set for a boosted-marshall type tone that honestly sounds better than my '86 JCM800. That was a big surprise. A lot of owners say that Rivera amps are a "jack-of-all-trades..." type situation: "It'll never REALLY sound like a Marshall...". I beg to differ. I think what throws people off is what an immense range the EQ and gain controls have, the voicing of the channel can change much more drastically than on a lot of amps. There is a learning curve when it comes to dialing it in, and as a general rule of thumb, start with everything at about 5 and slowly add or subtract one control at a time. There is a riduculous amount of bass on tap, as the KHII's were made during the nu-metal fad - don't be afraid to dial the bass control back to 3 or 4, any more can be overwhelming. I keep all of the push-pull pots in the "down" position, but even more extreme tone sculpting abounds when you start pulling them. If you want to venture into crushing, scooped mids tones these are the ticket.

Channel 1 is kind of a love-letter to Fender tones, and is probably really similar to some of the circuits Paul Rivera designed while working for them. Keep in mind that when I say "Fender" I don't mean just "sparkling blackface cleans" like most people assume when they hear the "F" word. Utilizing the push-pull controls will yield anything from the aforementioned cleans to tweed-esque breakup and beyond. I used to own a '65 blackface Fender Bassman which sounded godly when cranked up, and the KHII does a really close approximation of that. For me, having this channel is just a bonus - whenever I feel the need to rip some SRV it delivers in spades.

For someone in a cover-band doing multiple genres and styles, the dichotomy between Channels 1 and 2 would be invaluable. It really is like having two amps in a box. Sure, if you choose tubes and speakers to work best with one channel over the other, it might not deliver 100% in all areas. I think this is where the naysayers are drawing their experience from. Obviously, a Fender type circuit run with Tung-Sol 12AX7's into Vintage 30's isn't going to sound as "chime-y, sparkly, lush" etc. Conversely, a hot-rodded Marshall with RCA Long Plate 12AX7's and 12AT7's into alnico Jensens isn't going to have all the "crunch, aggression, brown-ness" etc. It's just a matter of finding a happy medium. For recording, you could have two sets of tubes and a couple cabinets with different speakers set up for either channel, and I'd bet if you did even the most omnipotent cork-sniffers would be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and the "real deal(s)".

Build quality and engineering is second to none. It's "built likea brick sh*thouse" to use the parlance of our times. Head-and-shoulders above what most current big-names are doing. Out of any amp I've owned (Mesa, Marshall, Soldano, Peavey, Vox, Orange, Fender) it has the lowest idling noise BY FAR. At a loud stage volume it has barely any hum or hiss. I don't know how they achieved that and still made this beast as ungodly loud as it is.

The biggest tip I could give with this amp is to use the effects loop as a master volume. I keep the front-panel volumes set to 10, then I run a short patch cable in the Send and Return jacks. Paul Rivera advises starting with the Send and Return levels both at 4 and using the front panel Masters, but through experimentation I found it sounded best when run with the channel masters dimed and setting the "Send" level to 10. Then I use the "Return" level as my master volume, and it works beautifully. In truth, running it without this gives the amp a completely different character. It's a lot more boomy, and is painfully buzzy until you hit about 5 on the channel master volume, which is ridiculously loud for most applications. Running it as I've described with the settings I use sounds really similar to some of the PPIMV modded Plexi clones I've been lucky enough to try.

My settings for an awesome, classic hotrod Marshall tone that's got enough juice for solos and still cleans up:

Pres: 5, Focus: 5.5, Master: 10, Treb: 5, Mid: 5.5, Bass: 3.5, Gain: 7

I run my guitar(s), usually loaded with Duncan Distortions or JB's, straight in with a high quality cable and get everything I need out of one channel and my volume pot.

YMMV, but for me it's just about perfect.