TELEFUNKEN vs Mullard
- Thread starter 2string1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
GreatTone
Super Member
Only one way to find out...
Question: are you talking about NOS Mullards or the new reissues? I thought the reissues sounded good, with almost overwhelming bass. But I was using them in my phono stage, and they hummed too much, so I put the original Telefunkens back in.
pilotputz
Super Member
Every Fisher I've ever had used Telefunken tubes. I imagine there is a reason for that: Maybe Fisher believed they performed best in that circuit?
Personally, I think Teles sound very bright and thin in hifi applications--I like them in guitar preamps, though.
To my ears, old stock Mullards tend to sound a bit dark and I think they sound better in guitar amps than hifi amps as well!
My bet is that the Mullards will sound darker and more bass-heavy than the Teles. Probably a little noisier than the Teles too, if you use them in the phono section.
Personally, I think Teles sound very bright and thin in hifi applications--I like them in guitar preamps, though.
To my ears, old stock Mullards tend to sound a bit dark and I think they sound better in guitar amps than hifi amps as well!
My bet is that the Mullards will sound darker and more bass-heavy than the Teles. Probably a little noisier than the Teles too, if you use them in the phono section.
diamondsouled
Recycle belly button lint!
Teles are fairly neutral/accurate. Mullards are warmer/tubier. Your experience may vary of course. :yes:
I've seen some Fisher-branded Mullards, but they seemed to have bought most of their tubes post-1960 from Telefunken. I've also seen some GEs and RCAs mixed in, but not in as great of quantities.
ssmith3046
Super Member
To my ears the Mullards has a "darker" or more muted tone. I have a pair of Fisher stamped Mullards that I like to use in the phase inverter sockets. I use Telefunkens or RCA black plates in the tone and phono/tape. My receiver is a Fisher 500C. I like to switch between the Telefunkens and black plates every so often because they're different sounding tubes. Both are great, just different.
Relax man,let your ears be the judge. You are the only one that matters when it comes to your gear.
Beanstocks
Active Member
Been fortunate enuf to try Mullard long plates vs. creased Teles flat plates vs. Bugle Boy 1958 long, foils in my Eico HF85 and PF C7a pre's in phono and line. Mullards are very mellow, easy to listen to, a bit dark. The BBs are more up front, detailed and bring U closer to the music. Very detailed and forward. The Teles have become my favorites because they have no characteristic except to play the music the way it was recorded. Open, detailed, wide soundstage. Flat or ribbed plates sound alike, try 'em. Ron
jmprest
Active Member
With regard to Mullard long plates they differ in construction and sound for each of the years 56,57,58, and 59. I have several hundred mid to late fifties 12ax7's and have rolled them extensively in the McIntosh C2200. The Telefunken 12ax7 are of two types ribbed or smooth. In the end though I found that the Telefunken ECC803s with Philips pinched waist 12at7/6201 combination was the best.
We as a group tend to spend many thousands of dollars on pre-amps and amps, and then seem to hold back on paying for the best quality tubes, I should have learned from the polls that you get what you pay for no short cuts here.
Hopefully this is taken as a reflection on my own experience, wasting much time and large sums of money....
Cheers
We as a group tend to spend many thousands of dollars on pre-amps and amps, and then seem to hold back on paying for the best quality tubes, I should have learned from the polls that you get what you pay for no short cuts here.
Hopefully this is taken as a reflection on my own experience, wasting much time and large sums of money....
Cheers
I think virtually every amp/preamp is going to sound differently with the same selection of tubes tele's pretty seem to sound the same whether there smoth plates ribbed plates or the S series, mullards seem to sound differently from year to year and from type to type, I have heard mullards that sounded metallic and sharp and I have heard mullards that sounded muddy and I have heard mullards that were sweet warm and detailed as teles are.
I also have heard the same tube sound good in one amp and bad in another, you are just going to have to try them on yourself, just dont judge all mullards or any brand by how one tube sounds. The beauty of tubes is that you can make an amp/preamp sound the way you want by changing the tubes versus constantly changing gear.
REGARDS JIM
I also have heard the same tube sound good in one amp and bad in another, you are just going to have to try them on yourself, just dont judge all mullards or any brand by how one tube sounds. The beauty of tubes is that you can make an amp/preamp sound the way you want by changing the tubes versus constantly changing gear.
REGARDS JIM
scottfan
7581A user
Have about 20 of both 12ax7 types. As others have said, the Mullards are dark, tend to increase bass, mids but the highs and detail seem rolled off. One of mine is a Mullard 10m. Some say they're better than Teles, I can't hear it. Also, Mullards 12ax7s seem to command a higher price and the 10m series is way overrated.
Telefunkens on the other hand, have excellent detail and extended highs but seem a bit thin by comparison. MY vote is Telefunken and no wonder since HH Scott put them in nearly every amp they made. My tube rolling rigs are all HH Scotts, 4 299s, a 296, and a 222D. Some recapped, some not.
While on the subject, Ei's are an cheap and excellent sub for Teles, however, finding one not microphonic isn't easy.
Telefunkens on the other hand, have excellent detail and extended highs but seem a bit thin by comparison. MY vote is Telefunken and no wonder since HH Scott put them in nearly every amp they made. My tube rolling rigs are all HH Scotts, 4 299s, a 296, and a 222D. Some recapped, some not.
While on the subject, Ei's are an cheap and excellent sub for Teles, however, finding one not microphonic isn't easy.
scottfan
7581A user
Hope so, since that 803s is a ~$400 tube - when they can be found!
UnGrounded
Well-Known Member
In regard to Fisher and Mullard:
When I purchased my circa-1964 Fisher X-100-A from the original owner, he said he never changed the tubes because he "never really used the thing". So, I take the lid off, and inside are five 12AX7 tubes, all branded Fisher: four are matched-date Sylvanias, and one is a Mullard.
Why Fisher would stick a lonely Mullard 12AX7 in with 4 Sylvania 12AX7's, I have no idea. I should've noted which position/function the Mullard served before I yanked it for re-appropriation.
When I purchased my circa-1964 Fisher X-100-A from the original owner, he said he never changed the tubes because he "never really used the thing". So, I take the lid off, and inside are five 12AX7 tubes, all branded Fisher: four are matched-date Sylvanias, and one is a Mullard.
Why Fisher would stick a lonely Mullard 12AX7 in with 4 Sylvania 12AX7's, I have no idea. I should've noted which position/function the Mullard served before I yanked it for re-appropriation.
They were chosen because they were the cheapest at the time. For a while many of the US tube manufacturers were charging more than the European companies for bulk orders of tubes.
Prior to 1960, Fisher used a lot of Sylvanias. I've found in my limited experience that Sylvania small-signal tubes sound excellent in mono-era Fisher gear.
redhotvalves
Active Member
Mullard 12AX7 tend to work very well in old (say pre 1976) Marshall guitar amps, lots of mid range punch and gain and usually not microphonic in a bad way.
