The standard Edelbrock casting does not have enough material in the right places. You can make it flow more, but it will get too big in the process. The Pro Port casting, as was mentioned above, is a blank sheet of canvas, with plenty of meat to make the right shape. To surpass the TFS with a small port, a person needs the Pro Port. I have some that are small and will outflow the TFS significantly, but they do cost more.
The BBMs are better than the regular Edelbrock. I have a CNC chamber and port that will equal the TFS, which is also cnc ported. The BBM will be a bigger port, but I think for 482 and larger engines, it is better with the added volume.
The TFS flow is very good out of the box, to about .550 lift, but it has issues with turbulence after that. My flowbench is a little more sensitive than a Superflow, and it picks up the problem sooner. A pitot tube to measure velocity around the short turn shows it, as well as the sound when it gets "mad". The hump in the floor flows good when you just put a radius on the end of the port, but it needs to be flowed with about another two inches of port.......to about the valve cover rail, to really see what is going on. The TFS head is not bad, but it does not produce power to match the "standard" head flow that most people see. I am fairly sure that the development was done with just the head only, and not any more extension to simulate the "rest" of the head that is in the intake manifold. My opinion is that the hump is too abrupt, the short turn is too sharp, and the vane behind the guide is turned the wrong direction. I have fooled with the port some and some of the issues can be corrected some before the low lift numbers start to suffer. I think the head is best suited for smaller cubic inch engines with .600 or less lift. If you are going bigger and more lift, I think the BBM with some loving is better. In my shop, the next level after a ported BBM with a CNC chamber, is to go to Pro Ports.