You've got a Fender HRD iii, you love it, but you want to up your game. Where do you go?

meltedbuzzbox

shaunm said:

I’m going to ask why change if you love it?

thats a very valid point. I'm sure @impmann can tell you how valve upgrades ruined the sound of his HRD as well. 

If you really want to change budget would be a key consideration. 
Things like the Carr rambler will set you back £2k+

I played through the same Fender amp for over 10 years. The only thing I ever found to truly wipe the floor with my old twin was a Hiwatt. 

The HRD is a good amp and its reasonable weight wise for lugging around. I wouldn't change it for the sake of changing it. 

Philtre

I'm intrigued by what a more costly Fender combo might bring to the party. I'm not looking for a replacement, as I would keep the HRD.

I would consider one of the following.

Super-sonic 22

'65 Princeton

'65 Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Vibrolux Reverb

’68 Custom Princeton Reverb

Requirements - clean channel (don't use dirty channel), lots of headroom, takes pedals well, good quality. If I had the cash, a hand-wired one!

impmann

meltedbuzzbox said:

shaunm said:

I’m going to ask why change if you love it?

thats a very valid point. I'm sure @impmann can tell you how valve upgrades ruined the sound of his HRD as well. 

If you really want to change budget would be a key consideration. 
Things like the Carr rambler will set you back £2k+

I played through the same Fender amp for over 10 years. The only thing I ever found to truly wipe the floor with my old twin was a Hiwatt. 

The HRD is a good amp and its reasonable weight wise for lugging around. I wouldn't change it for the sake of changing it. 

This. In. Spades.

TBH, changing valves did mess mine up. I've gone back to the original spec Groove Tubes and it sounds the same as when I bought it. I liked the way it sounded when I bought it, hence why I bought it...

Yes, you can fart about with this mod, that mod and all the rest of the internet BS that you can read - point is, if you like it, why change it? If you don't like it, try other amps... but really, the HRD is a superb Fender amp.

I'd also suggest that a lot of the 'perceived wisdom' on the internet about "upgrading" things (or buying "better" gear)  is 90% bullshit, 8% fairy dust, 1% 'mojo', 0.5% mood-dependant and 0.5% reality.

YMMV

ICBM

I agree up to a point about upgrading, but the speaker and valves (types rather than brands) do make a big difference - in some cases as much as a different amp. Whether that makes it ‘better’ is a matter of personal taste... but for me, a cleaner/clearer speaker and lower-gain preamp/less muddy power valves are a definite improvement and make it more like what I think a ‘Fender’ amp should sound like.

meltedbuzzbox

Philtre said:

I'm intrigued by what a more costly Fender combo might bring to the party. I'm not looking for a replacement, as I would keep the HRD.

I would consider one of the following.

Super-sonic 22

'65 Princeton

'65 Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Vibrolux Reverb

’68 Custom Princeton Reverb

Requirements - clean channel (don't use dirty channel), lots of headroom, takes pedals well, good quality. If I had the cash, a hand-wired one!

I would look outside of Fender as well. 
I used to be a diehard Fender only kind of guy but you miss so much more following that avenue. 
You also start to realised how scooped a Fenders sound is. 

Philtre

I think I'm narrowing it down to the '65 Deluxe Reverb - got to have 12" speaker and more than 20 watts...

Assuming that the "Custom" ones are MIM?

impmann

ICBM said:

I agree up to a point about upgrading, but the speaker and valves (types rather than brands) do make a big difference - in some cases as much as a different amp. Whether that makes it ‘better’ is a matter of personal taste... but for me, a cleaner/clearer speaker and lower-gain preamp/less muddy power valves are a definite improvement and make it more like what I think a ‘Fender’ amp should sound like.

"Less muddy power valves"

Sorry chum, but I don't follow.

My experience of a HRD III is that the standard fit 6L6GTs are big, open and far from "muddy". I went down several rabbit holes listening to all sorts of guff on line about how *this* set and *that* set will improve the sound... they didn't. Even taking the advice of some techs regarding bias and different valves... nope. It didn't make it sound the way they claimed it did. There's a lot of utter bullshit out there about these things - and a lot of very subjective "improvement" ranges from too subtle to be worth bothering with to "wtf is wrong with the amp".

The preamp gain of the clean channel is pretty much perfect to my ears in terms of gain... in fact, it can get insanely loud and clean (and clear). All the advice I had about changing to different values/brands etc had me coming back around to the standard fit ones... It sounds like a Fender amp. As for the gain channel... sorry, I can get far better (and more amp-like) drive from pedals - and the vast majority of HRD owners do just that. I tried a few suggestions regarding valve changes to "improve" the gain sounds... see comments above about the results.

Speaker - well, the earlier ones had a non-Celestion speaker. I don't like the sound of those, as they don't sound 'clearer' but they sound 'harsher' to my ears. Especially if you use gain. The three has more forward mids, which in a live context seems to work better than the earlier ones. Does it sound as glassy as a Silverface Twin? Thankfully no - otherwise it would have been flipped a long time ago.

Frankly if the OP likes the sound of the amp, I still fail to see what he's trying to acheive. Perhaps if he could explain what he finds to be a failing with the sound, there may be a solution - but having been on the merry go round, throwing money (and mods) at amps rarely has any effect other than bank balance reduction.

colourofsound

I had a HRD Mk II and 'upgraded' to a '68 Custom Deluxe Reverb. I can echo what others have said about '3D-ness'; the Deluxe Reverbs certainly have a depth to them that the single speaker HRDs lack, in my experience.

I played a gig that had Deville recently though, and that sounded bloody ace. As ever, your mileage may vary.

But for my money, '68 CDR is where its at.

Philtre

impmann said:

Frankly if the OP likes the sound of the amp, I still fail to see what he's trying to acheive. Perhaps if he could explain what he finds to be a failing with the sound, there may be a solution - but having been on the merry go round, throwing money (and mods) at amps rarely has any effect other than bank balance reduction.

Well, if you read my posts in this thread you would find:

I'm intrigued by what a more costly Fender combo might bring to the party. I'm not looking for a replacement, as I would keep the HRD.

Nor have I said or implied that there is a failing in my existing HRD iii.

What am I trying to achieve? Opinions on different fender combos.

Philtre

colourofsound said:

I had a HRD Mk II and 'upgraded' to a '68 Custom Deluxe Reverb. I can echo what others have said about '3D-ness'; the Deluxe Reverbs certainly have a depth to them that the single speaker HRDs lack, in my experience.

I played a gig that had Deville recently though, and that sounded bloody ace. As ever, your mileage may vary.

But for my money, '68 CDR is where its at.

This is the type of opinion I'm looking for. Thanks.

ICBM

impmann said:

"Less muddy power valves"

Sorry chum, but I don't follow.

My experience of a HRD III is that the standard fit 6L6GTs are big, open and far from "muddy".

Try some Philips 6L6WGBs and hear what 'less muddy' sounds like .

To be fair, the GTs aren't as bad as the Sovteks they used to use...

impmann said:

I went down several rabbit holes listening to all sorts of guff on line about how *this* set and *that* set will improve the sound... they didn't. Even taking the advice of some techs regarding bias and different valves... nope. It didn't make it sound the way they claimed it did. There's a lot of utter bullshit out there about these things - and a lot of very subjective "improvement" ranges from too subtle to be worth bothering with to "wtf is wrong with the amp".

Well, my experience is that it makes a fairly large and not at all subtle difference.

impmann said:

The preamp gain of the clean channel is pretty much perfect to my ears in terms of gain... in fact, it can get insanely loud and clean (and clear).

To me, breaking up when the channel volume is only on about 4 (out of 12) is too much gain. It's meant to be a *clean* channel. It should be possible to overdrive it if you want, but why so soon? It makes half the range of the control useless, and contributes to the 'too touchy' volume problem.

impmann said:

It sounds like a Fender amp. As for the gain channel... sorry, I can get far better (and more amp-like) drive from pedals - and the vast majority of HRD owners do just that. I tried a few suggestions regarding valve changes to "improve" the gain sounds... see comments above about the results.

I like the drive channel - it sounds like an overdriven Fender amp, which is what it's meant to do. In fact, leaving the 12AX7 in V2 is one of the things I do because this is what sounds right!

impmann said:

Speaker - well, the earlier ones had a non-Celestion speaker. I don't like the sound of those, as they don't sound 'clearer' but they sound 'harsher' to my ears. Especially if you use gain. The three has more forward mids, which in a live context seems to work better than the earlier ones.

The Celestion speaker (G12P-80, AKA Seventy/80) is one of the things that's most wrong with the III in my opinion. Overall the amp is too flat and lifeless until it's cranked up *further* than you had to with the II to get it sounding good, which negates the better taper of the pots... and I think the speaker has quite a lot to do with that. (For what it's worth I hate V30s in them too, which Fender put in some of the Special Editions.)

impmann said:

Does it sound as glassy as a Silverface Twin? Thankfully no - otherwise it would have been flipped a long time ago.

I tend to prefer a little warmer than the glassy SF clean sound as well - I like SF Twins, but I run them with the bright switch off and the treble on about 6 usually, with the mid and bass on 5.

impmann said:

Frankly if the OP likes the sound of the amp, I still fail to see what he's trying to acheive. Perhaps if he could explain what he finds to be a failing with the sound, there may be a solution - but having been on the merry go round, throwing money (and mods) at amps rarely has any effect other than bank balance reduction.

From everything he's posted so far, it sound like he's after the classic Fender clean tone... which is exactly what I've suggested will achieve.

You obviously like the stock sound of the HRD III... and that's fine. But don't deride making some fairly simple and not actually very expensive changes which will take it in the direction of the BF/SF Fender sound just because that's not what you like. It's still far less expensive than buying a new amp, quite possibly even if you sold the HRD. The changes are all easily reversible if you don't like them, and valves and a speaker can always be used in something else, or sold.

gordiji

I have the supersonic 22 & love it. The clean is fendery, not harsh and has a pleasant compression without silly vol. It breaks up well from 4/5 depending on pups but is plenty loud at this vol.

The distortion channel can pretty much be a clean, crunch or distortion channel depending on how it's set sounding best to my ears as a medium crunch.

I liked the option of a 2nd channel like this over the drri vibrato channel.

The reverb is ok, nothing special. Speaker needs breaking in, maybe room for improvement.

It's a bit hissy.

I've had a 90's twin, prosonic & a super 60 . It holds it's own with all of them & possibly the most practical vol wise.

dean111music

ICBM said:

impmann said:

"Less muddy power valves"

Sorry chum, but I don't follow.

My experience of a HRD III is that the standard fit 6L6GTs are big, open and far from "muddy".

Try some Philips 6L6WGBs and hear what 'less muddy' sounds like .

To be fair, the GTs aren't as bad as the Sovteks they used to use...

impmann said:

I went down several rabbit holes listening to all sorts of guff on line about how *this* set and *that* set will improve the sound... they didn't. Even taking the advice of some techs regarding bias and different valves... nope. It didn't make it sound the way they claimed it did. There's a lot of utter bullshit out there about these things - and a lot of very subjective "improvement" ranges from too subtle to be worth bothering with to "wtf is wrong with the amp".

Well, my experience is that it makes a fairly large and not at all subtle difference.

impmann said:

The preamp gain of the clean channel is pretty much perfect to my ears in terms of gain... in fact, it can get insanely loud and clean (and clear).

To me, breaking up when the channel volume is only on about 4 (out of 12) is too much gain. It's meant to be a *clean* channel. It should be possible to overdrive it if you want, but why so soon? It makes half the range of the control useless, and contributes to the 'too touchy' volume problem.

impmann said:

It sounds like a Fender amp. As for the gain channel... sorry, I can get far better (and more amp-like) drive from pedals - and the vast majority of HRD owners do just that. I tried a few suggestions regarding valve changes to "improve" the gain sounds... see comments above about the results.

I like the drive channel - it sounds like an overdriven Fender amp, which is what it's meant to do. In fact, leaving the 12AX7 in V2 is one of the things I do because this is what sounds right!

impmann said:

Speaker - well, the earlier ones had a non-Celestion speaker. I don't like the sound of those, as they don't sound 'clearer' but they sound 'harsher' to my ears. Especially if you use gain. The three has more forward mids, which in a live context seems to work better than the earlier ones.

The Celestion speaker (G12P-80, AKA Seventy/80) is one of the things that's most wrong with the III in my opinion. Overall the amp is too flat and lifeless until it's cranked up *further* than you had to with the II to get it sounding good, which negates the better taper of the pots... and I think the speaker has quite a lot to do with that. (For what it's worth I hate V30s in them too, which Fender put in some of the Special Editions.)

impmann said:

Does it sound as glassy as a Silverface Twin? Thankfully no - otherwise it would have been flipped a long time ago.

I tend to prefer a little warmer than the glassy SF clean sound as well - I like SF Twins, but I run them with the bright switch off and the treble on about 6 usually, with the mid and bass on 5.

impmann said:

Frankly if the OP likes the sound of the amp, I still fail to see what he's trying to acheive. Perhaps if he could explain what he finds to be a failing with the sound, there may be a solution - but having been on the merry go round, throwing money (and mods) at amps rarely has any effect other than bank balance reduction.

From everything he's posted so far, it sound like he's after the classic Fender clean tone... which is exactly what I've suggested will achieve.

You obviously like the stock sound of the HRD III... and that's fine. But don't deride making some fairly simple and not actually very expensive changes which will take it in the direction of the BF/SF Fender sound just because that's not what you like. It's still far less expensive than buying a new amp, quite possibly even if you sold the HRD. The changes are all easily reversible if you don't like them, and valves and a speaker can always be used in something else, or sold.

100% agree with all this. I do own the mkiv so it might be slightly different. But I think the mods have changed the amp in a much better way 

dean111music

Everyone’s ears are different though

Philtre

dean111music said:

Everyone’s ears are different though

impmann

dean111music said:

Everyone’s ears are different though

Don’t be daft... this is the internet, we all have to like the same things by consensus or by one person keep telling everyone else they are wrong...

;-)

ICBM

impmann said:

dean111music said:

Everyone’s ears are different though

Don’t be daft... this is the internet, we all have to like the same things by consensus or by one person keep telling everyone else they are wrong...

;-)

It does have to be said that one of the reasons I like the HRD drive channel is because it will do a good approximation of Neil Young's sound at low volume, and hence is perfect .

menamestom

Philtre said:

I'm intrigued by what a more costly Fender combo might bring to the party. I'm not looking for a replacement, as I would keep the HRD.

I would consider one of the following.

Super-sonic 22

'65 Princeton

'65 Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Deluxe Reverb

'68 Custom Vibrolux Reverb

’68 Custom Princeton Reverb

Requirements - clean channel (don't use dirty channel), lots of headroom, takes pedals well, good quality. If I had the cash, a hand-wired one!

For headroom, you need to be looking Deluxe reverb or above.  Bear in mind the custom versions are designed to break up earlier and have less NFB.
I have a 65 Princeton, headroom is reasonable, but only after a transformer, speaker and valve upgrade.
And whilst I agree about the 10” speaker being great for the Princeton, it is quite directional and the smaller cab limits the sound dispersion on stage, so that big lush ‘3D’ sound that is present in some scenarios can dissapear in more demanding situations.

Personally, I’d be looking at 6L6 if possible and decent wattage, so Super Reverb is a good call.

Or as a genuine upgrade to the Hot Rod I would imagine the MJW Electra Reverb would be ace.

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/126687/mjw-amps-update-thread#latest

ChuckManual

The weekend I had a Hotrod Deluxe 3 on loan was the same weekend I read an article about running overdrives in the FX loop of the HRD instead of the front end. Literally every pedal I tried in the loop made the amp sound better, especially the valve ones.

I then tried the same technique on a few other amps and the results were less uniformly pleasing - and, in fact, bloody awful through my favourite amp - so perhaps it's something to do with the HRD's circuit board...? I don't know, I'm not particularly technically minded, I just know what (I think) sounds good.

ICBM

ChuckManual said:

The weekend I had a Hotrod Deluxe 3 on loan was the same weekend I read an article about running overdrives in the FX loop of the HRD instead of the front end. Literally every pedal I tried in the loop made the amp sound better, especially the valve ones.

I then tried the same technique on a few other amps and the results were less uniformly pleasing - and, in fact, bloody awful through my favourite amp - so perhaps it's something to do with the HRD's circuit board...? I don't know, I'm not particularly technically minded, I just know what (I think) sounds good.

Do you mean you ran the overdrives *in* the loop - ie guitar > amp input > preamp out > pedal > power amp in? Or that you ran them *into* the loop - ie guitar > pedal > power amp in?

If the former, don't do that. There is a possibility of damaging the amp - it can cause feedback (which you won't hear, it's outside the audio range) via the amp's internal circuitry and blow the IC that drives the loop. Although it's something of a theoretical problem with most amps with a loop and doesn't always do any harm, I've come across it as an actual cause of damage at least three times on Hotrods, and several times with other amps too.

*Into* the loop is safe - that way you're bypassing the amp's own preamp.

'Awful' sound can be a warning of feedback too - if it's oddly quiet, over-compressed or 'squashed' sounding, strangely 'honky', very muddy or some other odd tone, the amp may be feeding back outside the audio range and preventing the real signal being amplified properly.