Telefunkens? Save your money.

[MBM135]

OK, got my slightly used Telefunken 12AX7s tonight. Square off between my new JAN Philips and the Tele's.

Sorry guys...no go...can't tell a difference.

...Pause while the Telefunken fans gasp...

Hey, I even bought a Telefunken T-Shirt. Has a tube on the back, etc.

I have an incredible test CD: "Visions and Rythms" Absolutely the best CD I have to test for clarity, bass, soundstage, imaging etc.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000001IY0/qid=1053061704/sr=1-17/ref=sr_1_17/104-5059893-1621514?v=glance&s=music

No discernable difference really. In fact, I think the JAN Philips sound slightly better. They seem a bit "louder" and more clear--less soft. Paid $29 for the JANs and $65 for the matched Teles. Not worth it guys.

Sorry to offend the Telefunken gurus. Maybe my ears are missing it.

Oh well, if I need to spend big bucks on vintage tubes to make a tube amp sound better is it worth it? JANs are back in. Tele's on the shelf. Anybody want to buy them for $65?

MM

[Deang]

If you don't mind me asking -- where did you get the "slightly used" Telefunkens?

Since they are both "12AX7s" -- they should spec out the same as far as gain. One should not be "louder than the other."

What you are describing is the sound of a tube on it's down swing.

[NOSValves]

Dean could be on to something ! Maybe you recieved a dead set of tele's but that is not common. I have never heard the Jan Phillips maybe its a cats meow ! I know one thing for sure Telefunkens are dead silent while a good portion of the USA 12AX7 seem to produce a good portion of noise. They also tend to test weak in used condition while Telefunkens just keep on going !

I also do hear a difference !

Craig

[Mike82]

I tend to agree with Dean and Craig. Your Teles may be on their last gasp. I've used them before in line pre-amps and a DAC, but didn't really care for them. Yes, they are "dead quiet" as Craig noted, but they sounded too "hot". Maybe there was too much gain compared to the Mullard 12AX7 (which I've been using for years).

The Teles are exelent tubes, but I think they are best used in tubed phono sections due to their low noise and high gain charasteristics.

[T2K]

I imagine one's experience will be dependant upon the usual mentioned speakers, equipment, room, etc. I too have noticed a slight variation among various tubes in what appears to be SPL. Didn't test with the SPL meter though.

I've tried Tele's, Mullards, RCA's, Sylvania's, Tesla's, and GE 12AX7's. All NOS. I could easily hear the improved clarity when listening to the Telefunken 12AX7's, but with my speakers the sound approached what I consider too bright for my ears. I liked them though and will listen more before passing judgement.

For the price I think the Tesla's are a best buy. How and if the preamp tubes sound are dependant upon the phase inverters and output tubes used will take more experimenting.

All of these comments are just my opinions based on limited listening. YMMV.

Keith

EDit> Correction: the Tele's and Mullards were used tubes that tested good.

[Allan Songer]

I've never been a huge fan of the Telefunken 12AX7--I use them as drivers in my amps because they LAST FOREVER. I have always been fond of Mullard long-plates and box-plates (CV4004) and early Bugle Boys. The Telefunkens are a bit TOO crisp and sterile to my ears. There has to be something wrong the "lightly used" tubes you purchased if they sound "softer" than those late-model Philips! I once bought a CASE of those for a buck a tube (over ten years ago) and resold all of them--I found them to be one of the most UNmusical 12AX7 I have ever heard in my system . . .

[NOSValves]

I have a theory on Vintage amps . I have rolled Telefunkens and Mullards in many a Scott and EICO HF-81 and always with the same results. The Telefunkens sound bright in the HF-81 but perfect in a Scott at least to my ears. Mullards sound soft and fat in a Scott and perfect in a HF-81 and also in the HF-85 I just sold the results were the same.

Original equipment on the Scott's were Telefunkens

Original equipment on the EICO's were Mullard

Could the designers tuned the EQ for the tube being used ?

Craig

[mike stehr]

"Could the designers tuned the EQ for the tube being used ?"

I think it would be a safe bet.

[Randy Taylor]

In my Pilot 232 I did a lot of tube rolling of the 12AX7 tubes and found that of all the NOS tubes that I had including Telefunken and Bugle boys and lots of others that the 50's RCA Black plates had the best sound and gave my Pilot a almost magic sound. If you look on E-bay you find lots of people selling Telefunken 12AX7's but you will find only a few RCA black plates for sale, it makes you think dosn't it, maybe others found that with telefunkens you are paying for the name and not so much the sound

[dubai2000]

By and large I agree with Craig's description - and even in my Mc 225 I found the Telefunken clear but ultimately too sterile. For my money (and enjoyment) I prefer Mullards or RCA Black Plates.

Wolfram

[AndyKubicki]

In the tube rolling I did a few weeks ago, I compared the following: Mullards, Telefunken Ribbed Plate, Telefunken Smooth Plate, JJs and Bugle Boys. There was not a huge difference between them in the sound, though I did find I liked the Mullards most. They even revealed more detail while in the phono section. The Ribbed Teles and BB were next. The JJs sounded much like the Jan's, on the bright side, but detailed also. The ones I did NOT like were the Smooth Plates. My wife even commented from the next room that they sounded muffled. There were a bit more differences in the microphonics level between them, and I believe the Mullards and Teles were best in that area while the newer production tubes were more susceptible to microphonics. I ended up buying the Ribbed Plate Teles...not quite as expensive as the Mullards and quite good.