You're correct about the tube but it does not apply once used in a tube socket .........the best tyre does not make the best driving experience in a car..
the problem with this test is when playing the record the switching of the tubes seems to be done thru out the song, the singers voice raises and lowers and the instruments tones and voices tones change thru out the song, so it becomes harder to tell which tubes are being used at a given point. I believe the correct way to test tubes is for each tube to have a limited time of play of the same portion of song. For example, start the track from the begining for each tube and play for about 30 seconds to a minute, repeat for each tube, i think that is the best way, because not everyones brain process information at the same speed and or has the capacity to remember what they just heard, i think the longer the wait between the tubes something gets lost and the harder it becomes to come to a conclusion which sounds better or different. For some of us, the shorter the time of the test the easier it may be to tell the difference, if any.
Darrkstar Customs Hey, great feedback! Thank you. This was my first shootout video and I agree it can be done better going forward. I did make a shorter one with links of the same sections. Check this one out. ua-cam.com/video/mVEVD_xUBjY/v-deo.html Thanks for the suggestions. I will incorporate these into my next ones. Thinking Bugle Boys vs Telefunken smooth plates next. 😁
Nice comparison man. Mullard imo has a kinda vintage sound, the tung sol has a solid sound and gave a sparkle in the upper range, and the Tele gave this pleasant crunch and mid range boost or grit. Thank you for this
Nicely executed, great comparison. I play a guitar and can only confirm that the Mullards are amazing for guitar amps. Smooth sound and nice overdrive. For hi-fi though, those Telefunkens can really sing, just a bit rolled off at the bass. May be a problem if your chain (from preamp to speakers) can not compensate for it.
I'll break down what I know after extensive testing and OCD taking over. And this is regardless of circuit. Telefunken = Most dynamic. Clear. Tighter bass. Drum slam is unbelievable. Rounder glassy mids. Noticeably different. Especially vocals. More presence to the vocals because of this. Makes you remember when that singer hits the top of a note. More air around the vocals too. But the vocals themselves are less airy. Still airy when needed. Not delicate. More depth to sound. Can feel more detailed because of clarity and punch around notes. You hear the pluck of the note more than the fingers touching the string Can be fatiguing depending on system. Can be bright in a pericing way. Not a dry bright way. Amperex= Less dynamic. Smoother and warmer. More detailed as far as hearing things you usual don't hear. And just more detailed. However not as clear, and bass is looser. So not as much punch around notes. You hear the fingers touching the strings more than the pluck. Definitely not as punchy. Bass is warmer. Vocals have air around them all the time. Never fatiguing. However they lack that roundness around vocals. Some might miss that. Some might enjoy that. Depends. That air around them is not as apparent, but the vocals themselves have more air to them. More bloom at times, but not more depth. A very 3d tube as in its all around you, but not more depth in front of you. Reminds me of a more detailed Mullard with telefunken sprinkled in. Mullard = Warner. Still detailed but warmer and darker. More mellow. Vocals thick, but in a warm kind of way. Not glassy. Less air then Amperex imo, but still very 3d. Very nice tube, but not my favorite unless we're talking power tubes.
Mullard sounds beautiful, the tele is so crisp and detailed but missing a little in the mids where the mullard excel. The tungsol sounds like it pushes the upper mids making it kinda flat. Cool shootout though.
Agree with you, the Tung sol and and Telefunken were more similar than they were different from each other. The greatest difference was with the Mullard. They seemed to offer a better overall balance, lacking the tendency to be sharp or display an over emphasis in the upper mid/treble. The Telefunkens especially were very strident and at first seemed to have more gain but it was already a feeling of someone messing with the tone controls. Where the Mullard is just more refined across the tonal picture and for me is the clear winner. Its the combination I would listen too over longer periods. I am referring of course to music reproduction not instrument amplification which what I use tubes like these for.
Test #1 1) Telefunken sounds best simply because it has the most and deepest bass. 2) Mullard has the best clarity and separation, but in Reggae the bass usually wins. 3) Tung-Sol sounds good too. Test # 2 1) The mid-range clarity of the Mullard works great with this very midrangey, somewhat distorted recording. 2) Telefunken sounds good too, but the clarity of the Mullard presents the recording better. 3) There's some slightly unpleasant distortion in the recording that the Tung Sol accentuates. Test #3 They all sounded great on this test. 1) Telefunken had the most bass, and somehow sounded very lifelike as well. 2) The Mullard really presented the instruments and voice nicely. There was a lot of character in the bass guitar and guitar which came across most strongly on the Mullard. 3) The sharper, quicker profile of the Tung Sol sounded great with this tune as well. All three tubes sounded great, but it seemed like the Telefunken and the Mullard had really noticeable specific strengths. It's not surprising that the differences between all of them were most noticeable on the song where I didn't like the recording quality as much.
I don’t see a way for me to reply directly to you, I like a wide variety of brands of vintage tubes, sometimes you have to find the right place in a specific piece of gear to hear what you best like about it. Sometimes a certain tube even a high quality one doesn’t sound good in a certain amp or pre amp. I had a tube customer a few years ago who brought his Marshall guitar amp to me - a rack unit with two 100W each mono blocks. His was the 5881 power tube model, they also came in an EL34 version. Anyway he bought some vintage Raytheon USA made black plates from me and a vintage Mullard, all 12AX7’s. The Mullard in v1 sounded terrible, but moving it to v2 and a Raytheon to v1 and it truly rocked.
Totally. I agree tubes need to match their gear. I have a few tube mics and the ones that sound great in my phonostage sound terrible in mics. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
For what i know. a tube cannot representa brand fully. Example ECC 83 on Telefunken , there are three type of tube rip and smooth plate and a special tube RCC 803s, they are different.
Interesting tube rolling but remember it's only valuable with the Project and personal taste/ total system............there's a tube personal potential and on the other side the results obtained in a system, both can share perhaps the same musical expressions and synergy but often they can also be antagonists and the combo may play not good at all with the very best tube !!!!! ..............never proclaim the sound signature of a tube by trying it in a system or amplifier .............it is only valuable for the given experience ! Only the results count for the experience someone does ...........and if you smile you found the richt one for your system and to YOUR taste..........
Thanks! I love telefunken as well. Someday will do a comparison of the tele smooth long plates to the mullard mc1 long plates. Those two are both quite special.
@@VinylTonic I´ll waiting for it, I particularly liked your video of the p6 vs 1200, could you tell me which mods have you done to it? even the platter looked different if I remember correctly
No real mods to either TT. I added the Rega 2mm spacer on the P6 to get the right height for the ortofon cartridge. Other than that they are stock of you can believe it. A nice cartridge, TT mat and tube phonostage go a long way. I have not felt the need to do any other mods.
It would be better (easy for me to say, I know) if you would repeat the passage of play each time for the different tubes because it's hard to tell if the ride cymbal and cymbal strikes are different as the song progresses, or is it really the tube being used. The Mullards appeared to have more presence and air when just listening to the cymbals but I feel that Tele tubes do better in that area. I have the exact phono preamp as you do and actually have Tele's in it right now but I've also had vintage Mullards in it.
hi, great choices. i like the i63 to add low mids and take the sharpness away they are the best for bass without losing clarity. compared to that ,the i61(1959-1964) has more air and sparkle and less low mids , it's my weapon of choice for any audio preamp or guitar amp,there is also an i62 but it's very rare, made only at 1964 with yellow print. brimars and rca's are great as well for warmth ,i also use ge's for tonetaming. enjoy
I use the Mullard MC1 Long Plate Square Getters as my go to Mullard in my phonostage these days. I prefer the 163 where I need something super stable like a tube mic, however in the phonostage those MC1s sound so nice. More airy up tome with the same low end tone. Lately I have been rolling with the Telefunken long smooth plates as they are such a versatile transparent tube. This chat makes me want to get out my Mullards or Amperex again. 😊
I have read that in the DS ll the tubes only work as a buffer for the impedance, and thus actually have no influence on the sound! it is reinforced with a chip (Google translator) greetings manuel
My understanding is the Tubebox DS2 does have the tubes in the output path and that was a myth. It does use a circuit board and opamp which many say changes the sound. I can say that the discrete Icon Audio with the same tubes makes a big difference. Much more dynamic and sweet sounding.
@@VinylTonic I own the DS2. I wanted it because it has 2 inputs. It replaced my older Tubebox. The DS2 is more analytical which leads me to believe that the tubes are only being used as a buffer. I like the older Tubebox mids, has that bloomy tube sound.
1st Telefunken 2nd Tung Sol 3rd Mullard ...... The Mullard sounded like a little muffled, the Tung Sol more crispier and Telefunken more clear, more upfront .
i have a lot of telefunken 12ax7s around, i use them in guitar amps. Do they sound any different? No, not at all. The just are reliable and easy to find in germany, thats all. All those tubes sound exactly the same. period. Spend your money on a decent record player and not on a rega....
Lol my ass they all sound the same. Are u crazy? Signal tubes make the single biggest difference in a tube amp. Especially certain amps. My 1959 Bell carrilion 6060 sounds significantly different with different signal and power tubes. And that amp uses negative feedback. So I was shocked at just how much different it sounds depending on the tubes. Amperex 12ax7s, the 50s ones from Herleen, imo are the best. Along with Telefunkens which are very neutral, dynamic with a wide Soundstage. And yes, last forever. I love using amperex in the v1 and 2 followed by Telefunkens. I like Raytheon black plates in the phase inverter positions. Christ the sound changes even with different rectifier brands which should be impossible. I can't even explain that one.
Nice gear. Telefunken all the way imho. That Mullard sounded harsh to me on the vocal tracks. The Telefunken to my ears sounds more open and spacious than the others, not cluttered. Plus the same tube can sound different from one piece of gear to the other, and in amps that use two or more of the same type of tubes, different depending upon the sequence they have been installed in that gear.
Thanks foe sharing what you hear. The more I hear the Teles the more I like them. My most recent video has Thriller going through the Teles. MJs voice sounds so nice and not harsh at all.
Mullards were nice an clean, Tung-Sol was distant sounding somehow, Telefunkens had the most power but sounded a bit too full giving a muddiness. To my ears anyhow.
with those mullards is like new musicians recorded the tracks in a different studio with an entirely different engineer, I felt inside the studio and control room and I felt like I could even hear the thoughts everybody in that room had at that particular time, but this whole test was invalid as I could notice the power supply is not coming from a discrete nuclear power plant, also your room got in the way, also, where did you record this, abbey road at least? any other facility would render this entire effort into uselessness
The telefunkens brought some life to the music the others didn't have.
Yes
Agree !
Watta great selection!!!starting with Burning Spear!!!
Mullard is a winner for me, great mid-tone representation, fully balanced not overly powered on low end like tele and not overly sweet like tung.
You're correct about the tube but it does not apply once used in a tube socket .........the best tyre does not make the best driving experience in a car..
I like the telefunken bass response. Good punch.
Also the music used was great!!
the problem with this test is when playing the record the switching of the tubes seems to be done thru out the song, the singers voice raises and lowers and the instruments tones and voices tones change thru out the song, so it becomes harder to tell which tubes are being used at a given point. I believe the correct way to test tubes is for each tube to have a limited time of play of the same portion of song. For example, start the track from the begining for each tube and play for about 30 seconds to a minute, repeat for each tube, i think that is the best way, because not everyones brain process information at the same speed and or has the capacity to remember what they just heard, i think the longer the wait between the tubes something gets lost and the harder it becomes to come to a conclusion which sounds better or different. For some of us, the shorter the time of the test the easier it may be to tell the difference, if any.
Darrkstar Customs Hey, great feedback! Thank you. This was my first shootout video and I agree it can be done better going forward. I did make a shorter one with links of the same sections. Check this one out. ua-cam.com/video/mVEVD_xUBjY/v-deo.html Thanks for the suggestions. I will incorporate these into my next ones. Thinking Bugle Boys vs Telefunken smooth plates next. 😁
Darrkstar Customs No no, the way its done is the best. I heard big difference the second the tubes swapped.
Exactly. Same record track at same volume … this “test” is not relevant … but kudos for the effort doing it
Stock tube voice is excellent.
I've got a couple of 1960's smooth-plate Telefunkens I run in my Marshall... wouldn't trade them for anything.
Nice comparison man. Mullard imo has a kinda vintage sound, the tung sol has a solid sound and gave a sparkle in the upper range, and the Tele gave this pleasant crunch and mid range boost or grit. Thank you for this
Why would you want grit?
@@scottlowell493 I like a gritty sound at times.
Nicely executed, great comparison. I play a guitar and can only confirm that the Mullards are amazing for guitar amps. Smooth sound and nice overdrive. For hi-fi though, those Telefunkens can really sing, just a bit rolled off at the bass. May be a problem if your chain (from preamp to speakers) can not compensate for it.
Telefunken 100% Tung-Sol 65% Mullard 75%
I'll break down what I know after extensive testing and OCD taking over. And this is regardless of circuit.
Telefunken = Most dynamic. Clear. Tighter bass. Drum slam is unbelievable. Rounder glassy mids. Noticeably different. Especially vocals. More presence to the vocals because of this. Makes you remember when that singer hits the top of a note. More air around the vocals too. But the vocals themselves are less airy. Still airy when needed. Not delicate. More depth to sound. Can feel more detailed because of clarity and punch around notes. You hear the pluck of the note more than the fingers touching the string
Can be fatiguing depending on system. Can be bright in a pericing way. Not a dry bright way.
Amperex= Less dynamic. Smoother and warmer. More detailed as far as hearing things you usual don't hear. And just more detailed. However not as clear, and bass is looser. So not as much punch around notes. You hear the fingers touching the strings more than the pluck.
Definitely not as punchy. Bass is warmer. Vocals have air around them all the time. Never fatiguing. However they lack that roundness around vocals. Some might miss that. Some might enjoy that. Depends. That air around them is not as apparent, but the vocals themselves have more air to them. More bloom at times, but not more depth. A very 3d tube as in its all around you, but not more depth in front of you.
Reminds me of a more detailed Mullard with telefunken sprinkled in.
Mullard = Warner. Still detailed but warmer and darker. More mellow. Vocals thick, but in a warm kind of way. Not glassy. Less air then Amperex imo, but still very 3d. Very nice tube, but not my favorite unless we're talking power tubes.
Mullard sounds beautiful, the tele is so crisp and detailed but missing a little in the mids where the mullard excel. The tungsol sounds like it pushes the upper mids making it kinda flat. Cool shootout though.
Thanks for this
Tung-Sol is the big winner for me!
Agree with you, the Tung sol and and Telefunken were more similar than they were different from each other. The greatest difference was with the Mullard. They seemed to offer a better overall balance, lacking the tendency to be sharp or display an over emphasis in the upper mid/treble. The Telefunkens especially were very strident and at first seemed to have more gain but it was already a feeling of someone messing with the tone controls. Where the Mullard is just more refined across the tonal picture and for me is the clear winner. Its the combination I would listen too over longer periods. I am referring of course to music reproduction not instrument amplification which what I use tubes like these for.
Test #1 1) Telefunken sounds best simply because it has the most and deepest bass. 2) Mullard has the best clarity and separation, but in Reggae the bass usually wins. 3) Tung-Sol sounds good too.
Test # 2 1) The mid-range clarity of the Mullard works great with this very midrangey, somewhat distorted recording. 2) Telefunken sounds good too, but the clarity of the Mullard presents the recording better. 3) There's some slightly unpleasant distortion in the recording that the Tung Sol accentuates.
Test #3 They all sounded great on this test. 1) Telefunken had the most bass, and somehow sounded very lifelike as well. 2) The Mullard really presented the instruments and voice nicely. There was a lot of character in the bass guitar and guitar which came across most strongly on the Mullard. 3) The sharper, quicker profile of the Tung Sol sounded great with this tune as well.
All three tubes sounded great, but it seemed like the Telefunken and the Mullard had really noticeable specific strengths. It's not surprising that the differences between all of them were most noticeable on the song where I didn't like the recording quality as much.
I don’t see a way for me to reply directly to you, I like a wide variety of brands of vintage tubes, sometimes you have to find the right place in a specific piece of gear to hear what you best like about it.
Sometimes a certain tube even a high quality one doesn’t sound good in a certain amp or pre amp.
I had a tube customer a few years ago who brought his Marshall guitar amp to me - a rack unit with two 100W each mono blocks.
His was the 5881 power tube model, they also came in an EL34 version.
Anyway he bought some vintage Raytheon USA made black plates from me and a vintage Mullard, all 12AX7’s.
The Mullard in v1 sounded terrible, but moving it to v2 and a Raytheon to v1 and it truly rocked.
Totally. I agree tubes need to match their gear. I have a few tube mics and the ones that sound great in my phonostage sound terrible in mics. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
For what i know. a tube cannot representa brand fully. Example ECC 83 on Telefunken , there are three type of tube rip and smooth plate and a special tube RCC 803s, they are different.
Jak dla mnie tung sol 👌.Najbardziej wierny i naturalny dźwięk 😊
Interesting tube rolling but remember it's only valuable with the Project and personal taste/ total system............there's a tube personal potential and on the other side the results obtained in a system, both can share perhaps the same musical expressions and synergy but often they can also be antagonists and the combo may play not good at all with the very best tube !!!!! ..............never proclaim the sound signature of a tube by trying it in a system or amplifier .............it is only valuable for the given experience !
Only the results count for the experience someone does ...........and if you smile you found the richt one for your system and to YOUR taste..........
I like the telefunken more, great video
Thanks! I love telefunken as well. Someday will do a comparison of the tele smooth long plates to the mullard mc1 long plates. Those two are both quite special.
@@VinylTonic I´ll waiting for it, I particularly liked your video of the p6 vs 1200, could you tell me which mods have you done to it? even the platter looked different if I remember correctly
No real mods to either TT. I added the Rega 2mm spacer on the P6 to get the right height for the ortofon cartridge. Other than that they are stock of you can believe it. A nice cartridge, TT mat and tube phonostage go a long way. I have not felt the need to do any other mods.
It would be better (easy for me to say, I know) if you would repeat the passage of play each time for the different tubes because it's hard to tell if the ride cymbal and cymbal strikes are different as the song progresses, or is it really the tube being used. The Mullards appeared to have more presence and air when just listening to the cymbals but I feel that Tele tubes do better in that area. I have the exact phono preamp as you do and actually have Tele's in it right now but I've also had vintage Mullards in it.
Price wise the Tungsol is a winner. Otherwise, the TFK.
For guitar amps mullards are the best. For hifi equipment Telefunkens
I agree. The more I listen to tubes the more I love Mullards for overdrive and Telefunken for 3D transparency.
hi, great choices. i like the i63 to add low mids and take the sharpness away they are the best for bass without losing clarity. compared to that ,the i61(1959-1964) has more air and sparkle and less low mids , it's my weapon of choice for any audio preamp or guitar amp,there is also an i62 but it's very rare, made only at 1964 with yellow print.
brimars and rca's are great as well for warmth ,i also use ge's for tonetaming.
enjoy
I use the Mullard MC1 Long Plate Square Getters as my go to Mullard in my phonostage these days. I prefer the 163 where I need something super stable like a tube mic, however in the phonostage those MC1s sound so nice. More airy up tome with the same low end tone.
Lately I have been rolling with the Telefunken long smooth plates as they are such a versatile transparent tube. This chat makes me want to get out my Mullards or Amperex again. 😊
Telefunken for the win
💙
I have read that in the DS ll the tubes only work as a buffer for the impedance, and thus actually have no influence on the sound! it is reinforced with a chip
(Google translator) greetings manuel
My understanding is the Tubebox DS2 does have the tubes in the output path and that was a myth. It does use a circuit board and opamp which many say changes the sound. I can say that the discrete Icon Audio with the same tubes makes a big difference. Much more dynamic and sweet sounding.
Difficulty in hearing any difference.. This Preamp is only using the tubes as an output buffer... The first stage uses opamps!! 😕
Yep. I think the Tubebox S2 is what you want from ProJect if you want discreet and pure tube.
@@VinylTonic I own the DS2. I wanted it because it has 2 inputs. It replaced my older Tubebox. The DS2 is more analytical which leads me to believe that the tubes are only being used as a buffer. I like the older Tubebox mids, has that bloomy tube sound.
@@67Pepper I agree. I had the DS2 and the Tubebox S2 and found the cheaper Tubebox S2 to sound more pleasing overall.
1st Telefunken 2nd Tung Sol 3rd Mullard ...... The Mullard sounded like a little muffled, the Tung Sol more crispier and Telefunken more clear, more upfront .
Thanks for explaining what you hear. The more I listen to the Telefunkens the more I appreciate them. Especially the long smooth plates from the 60s!
i have a lot of telefunken 12ax7s around, i use them in guitar amps. Do they sound any different? No, not at all. The just are reliable and easy to find in germany, thats all. All those tubes sound exactly the same. period. Spend your money on a decent record player and not on a rega....
Lol my ass they all sound the same. Are u crazy? Signal tubes make the single biggest difference in a tube amp. Especially certain amps. My 1959 Bell carrilion 6060 sounds significantly different with different signal and power tubes. And that amp uses negative feedback. So I was shocked at just how much different it sounds depending on the tubes.
Amperex 12ax7s, the 50s ones from Herleen, imo are the best. Along with Telefunkens which are very neutral, dynamic with a wide Soundstage. And yes, last forever. I love using amperex in the v1 and 2 followed by Telefunkens. I like Raytheon black plates in the phase inverter positions.
Christ the sound changes even with different rectifier brands which should be impossible. I can't even explain that one.
Your ear is sleep.
Interesting comparison would have been vintage Tungsol’s and the reissues
Nice gear. Telefunken all the way imho.
That Mullard sounded harsh to me on the vocal tracks.
The Telefunken to my ears sounds more open and spacious than the others, not cluttered.
Plus the same tube can sound different from one piece of gear to the other, and in amps that use two or more of the same type of tubes, different depending upon the sequence they have been installed in that gear.
Thanks foe sharing what you hear. The more I hear the Teles the more I like them. My most recent video has Thriller going through the Teles. MJs voice sounds so nice and not harsh at all.
Mullards were nice an clean, Tung-Sol was distant sounding somehow, Telefunkens had the most power but sounded a bit too full giving a muddiness. To my ears anyhow.
I have Amperex and some Mullards, Siemens is the best?
Good question. I am not sure. I have never used Siemens tubes so I don’t know how they sound.
I believe most, if not all, Siemens are rebranded Telefunkens.
Telefunky
So this just proves that a tube is a tube….. I mean the mullard is warmer
Telefunkens are the best, second are Tung-sol, last Mullard. On last track the worst are Telefunkens, no bass.
with those mullards is like new musicians recorded the tracks in a different studio with an entirely different engineer, I felt inside the studio and control room and I felt like I could even hear the thoughts everybody in that room had at that particular time, but this whole test was invalid as I could notice the power supply is not coming from a discrete nuclear power plant, also your room got in the way, also, where did you record this, abbey road at least? any other facility would render this entire effort into uselessness
LOL. I love your ending. Great conclusion. 😛
When tubes are swapped from Telefunken down to the others, this is not noticeable, but as Telefunken is back you hear this immediately )))
Yeah. The more I listen to them then more I like them.
I cant hear a damm difference lol 😅 but I listened to the while video because vinyl