View Single Post
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default info HELP needed with HICKOK 534

On Aug 19, 7:02 pm, Terry wrote:

Are you saying the Hickok 534 would only be worth $125 in excellent
condition?


Yep.

a) The *primary* reason for an MC tester these days is for the proper
matching of tubes. The 534 cannot do this without difficult
adaptations. And even then, as it does not have adjustable bias, the
results would be questionable.

b) The *secondary* reason for an MC tester these days is speed and
efficiency. The 534 is not a Cardomatic, so it is neither fast nor
efficient.

After which a decent Emissions Only tester capable of testing "Shorts"
and "Gas" is more than adequate for 99-44/100% of all general
applications. Decent Emissions Only testers may be had for $25-$50.
So, anything short of testers meeting a) and/or b) criteria above are
worth no more than an extremely accurate emissions tester... or $100 -
$125 USD.

Keep in mind that tube testers are remarkably complex tools that have
acquired a near-legendary but almost entirely undeserved reputation
for being both necessary and useful tools for the tube-audio hobby.
For the most part, they are neither as the typical user both does not
understand their actual use and even then invests far too much trust
in the results obtained from them. I keep a Hickok 539B (an actually
useful tester) and a Simpson 555 emissions-only tester.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIMPSON-555-TUBE...QQcmdZViewItem
(NOT MINE)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Hickok-539B-Tube...QQcmdZViewItem
(NOT MINE)

Of the two, the Simpson answers most of my daily needs, and was
obtained for $50 with all the updated data and tube lists, and is very
clean and nice. The 539B gets trotted out when I have to match tubes
and/or do actual quality tests and test tubes under various
parameters... or perhaps once every couple of months. Yes, it will be
pried from my cold, dead fingers but for all that I have a very
realistic understanding of its actual utility and the information it
delivers.

Tube testers are NOT magic. They are no better than the average
screwdriver. Unless they happen to be the correct fit for the specific
screw at-hand, they are almost worse than useless. Much like variacs
without meters.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA