Garrard 301 - Project

Link to my aforementioned Black Treasures.

TFK ECC83s are so "legendary" for their "tonal richness" 

No they are not.

Exact opposite - in the Marantz 7 circuit they are fast, reasonably transparent and very flat. I have a draw full of premium flat plate Telefunkins. They have never sounded rich.

If you want rich - Mullards tend to be much more fullsome the expense of speed and neutrality.

The problem with any discussion on tubes is that the best tube can be circuit related - you can't make blanket statements.

I like Telefunkens, but, I never considered them to be tonally rich sounding tubes.  The ones I heard were very lively and dynamic sounding, but, considerably leaner than the likes of Mullard and Amperex.  

Absolutely correct - I have drawer fulls of flat plate telefunkens - they are as described. I also have a stash of Mullard CV4004 and M8137's both are richer and fuller sounding than the Tele's.

In my Marantz 7 I preferred the Telfunkens.

In my Jadis preamp I preferred the Mullards in some positions ( but not all ).

@dover Funny, I had a drawer full of the box plate Mullards you mention. Nice if one likes creamy, warm, and slow, with no air. I'll concede that Teles can be a little lacking in warmth. However, I maintain that you can adjust tonality elsewhere in the system without slowing it all down in the phono amplifier.

@dover, @larryi 

You both are right—Telefunken ECC83s are not “tonally rich” in the sense that Mullards or Amperex tubes are. They’re prized for their neutrality, speed, and precision rather than warmth or fullness. Their sonic signature tends to be leaner, more transparent, and dynamic, which is why they excel in circuits like the Marantz 7, where their neutrality complements the design’s inherent qualities.

As you mentioned, tube performance is highly circuit-dependent. Telefunkens might shine in a circuit designed for clarity and speed, while Mullards or Amperex tubes with their fuller and richer sound, might be better suited for systems aiming for warmth and body. It’s fascinating how tube rolling allows for such fine-tuning, but also how generalized statements about “the best tube” fall short when we take into account circuit topology, system synergy and personal preference.

Your experience highlights the beauty of experimentation, something I deeply believe in.

Do you find that your preference for Telefunken or Mullard shifts depending on the type of music you’re listening to or is it the system’s overall tonal balance?

Dover, Please lighten up. I was quoting Lalitk. That is why the words were in quotation marks.  Evidently Lalitk experiences the TFK ECC83 as tonally rich. As we all know, one's impressions of the SQ of any single item in a system are dependent upon what else is in the system and what is in the caput of the listener. Although I have to say that I preferred the sound of TFK ECC83s against any other congener in my Quicksilver preamplifier, I also hold with noromance that you can adjust tonality elsewhere, such as by careful choice of output coupling capacitor, and etc. I used the TFKs in the Q because I have owned a quad of them since the 1970s, and I figured I ought to at least give them a try.  The Quicksilver is a superb sounding unit, in my opinion, but these days it just sits on the shelf.  Mullards were underwhelming in the Quicksilver, not even second choice. I am in general not a fan of tube rolling at all.