Garrard 301 - Project

@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.

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?

No. I listen to mostly Jazz & Classical.

My preferences are for maximum speed and transparency. I very seldom have any issues with system balance - having multiple arms/cartridges is enough.

One thing I cannot stand is slowness or aberrations/colourations - I find that ultimately they grate on you over time. Best to build a balanced system to start with.

In terms of tube choice - its the particular application that can determine tube variant in my experiences - specifically with classic circuits eg Marantz you have tubes that perform gain functions and tubes that are used in a cathode follower application ( no gain, used as buffer to generate a low impedance output ).

Occasionally I have found that the 2 best tubes in those positions are not the same.

@lewm

I used to distribute Quicksilver, I have owned them years ago - the QS preamp runs the tubes very very hard. 

@dover

Your focus on speed and transparency aligns perfectly with your preference for a balanced and revealing system. It’s great that your approach to tube selection considers the nuances of classic circuit design. That level of detail ensures optimal synergy and performance without introducing unwanted coloration or sluggishness.

My journey into analog so far has been nothing short of amazing experiences. There is still lot more work ahead as I look forward to receiving the elusive Woodsong plinth + implementation of 2nd tonearm and Mono cart by Spring 2025.