How are Mullards supposed to sound?


System: Rogers Studio 7, Prima Luna Prologue One, Marantz SA-8003

The stock (Chinese?) tubes in my Prima Luna Prologue One finally wore out after two years. The stock tubes sounded really excellent.

I decided to "upgrade." First to Electro-Harmonix tubes, which sounded decent but not as good as the stock tubes, and now to Mullards.

I know that tubes take a little while to "burn-in" but these Mullards sound awful.

They have a hard, clangy, echoing (microphonic) quality that none of the other tubes ever had. The soundstage seems to have receded backwards by a hundred feet. Everything sounds small and far away.

Is this how Mullards sound? I thought they were supposed to sound romantic. Is this all part of the "burn-in" process?
layman

Showing 1 response by drrsutliff

The cost of the NOS Mullards, if you can locate a quad, will set you back significant dollars these days, though possibly worth the investment. In modern production EL34 tubes my expermentation has repeatedly led me back to the SED "Winged C" EL34 tubes. A matched quad will set you back a little more than the reissue Mullards but are reveiwed to be closer to the original (NOS) Mullards than other tubes presently produced. I have tried the new production Mullard Svetlana, Tung-Sol, Gold Lion KT-77, and JJ and in the context of my system the SED tubes have sounded the best. There is also the option of the new Treasure 6CA7 (EL34 equivalent) that you could search the threads about as an additional option that I have no direct experience with.