[[email protected]]

Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Hmm. That's a pretty impressive tester - though at first sight not too
user friendly:-)

We don't see Hickok very often here in Europe, but the various models
from AVO (Gt Britain) and Funke and Neuberger (Germany) are not
uncommon. The AVO Mk IV is the most sought-after. The last model,
type CT163 is rarely seen.

Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot? I have both
the AVO CT 160 (military model) and the Mk IV (a workshop/lab
unit) I am thinking about putting some pics and brief user instructions
on my website if anyone is interested.

Regards to all
Iain.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 14, 3:06 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Hmm. That's a pretty impressive tester - though at first sight not too
user friendly:-)

We don't see Hickok very often here in Europe, but the various models
from AVO (Gt Britain) and Funke and Neuberger (Germany) are not
uncommon. The AVO Mk IV is the most sought-after. The last model,
type CT163 is rarely seen.

Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot? I have both
the AVO CT 160 (military model) and the Mk IV (a workshop/lab
unit) I am thinking about putting some pics and brief user instructions
on my website if anyone is interested.

Regards to all
Iain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Hickok 539-series, with the addition of various aspects of a VOM
can:

Accurately measure plate and grid currents.
Vary bias.
Measure on multiple scales.
Allow external bias voltages to be applied.
Usual other suspects (gas, shorts, life... also within the realm of
very good emissions-only testers).
Allow AC-over-DC indication on tube diodes.... this is put badly, but
it can be derived from the readings if there is significant AC
leakage. And when testing something like a 5AR4/GZ34, this is
important.
Reverse voltages on the grid (can't remember if I ever used that
feature).
And a few other things that I do not remember in detail.
Handle a KT-88/6550 under full test load for as long as is needful and
without heating up.
It is a true GM-type tester as well, of course.

I would guess that apart from socket differences, there is not much to
choose between the TOL AVOs and the Hickok 539-series as far as
capabilities are concerned. But for much more information, do a search
on the net. This is a "Cult" tester as noted, so there is LOTS out
there.

$750 new in the 1950s!

I have the 539B that I acquired some years back when Leon Fertik
closed his doors... he had three of them and sold me one for about
pocket change at the time because I fixed his other two (the 83s had
crapped out as is typical). If you ask nicely, I will take the unit
out of the case and send you pictures of the innards. That would be 16
chassis screws and a few other fasteners... It is about due for its
cleaning anyway (and calibration check), and this would give me an
excuse to do it.

the BAMA site has the charts, revisions and service manuals, last I
looked.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Sander deWaal]

"Iain Churches" said:


Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot? I have both
the AVO CT 160 (military model) and the Mk IV (a workshop/lab
unit) I am thinking about putting some pics and brief user instructions
on my website if anyone is interested.


Iain,
This site may be of interest to you:
http://www.crowthornetubes.com/valvetest.htm

My trusty Mk.III is still going strong, BTW. ;-)
Not much use for it, lately..........

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -

[SpaceCharge 1]

wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

Actually the KS-15874-L2 was probably the most sophisticated tester
offered to the public, way more complicated than the 539 with regulated
power supplies and had 8 tubes in the circuit.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 14, 6:03 pm, SpaceCharge 1 wrote:
wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

Actually the KS-15874-L2 was probably the most sophisticated tester
offered to the public, way more complicated than the 539 with regulated
power supplies and had 8 tubes in the circuit.

A very nice tester indeed. The manual may be found at:

http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/hickok/ks15874l2/

And it was designed for volume testing rather than onsies-precision
testing as with the 539 series. This specific model was commissioned
by WE from Hickok for their specific needs. It was never actually
"offered to the public" as that model number, but made exclusively for
WE and their contractors.

The Cardomatics were offered to the Public.

The 539 will be more useful to the typical user of this group. Lord
Valve would appreciate the speed and user-friendliness of the
Cardomatics... but few others would ever have his needs. And LV would
then need additional means to do matching anyway.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 3:10 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:

Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your insight. I was looking for something to test the
many tubes I have stockpiled over the years for my hi-fi and guitar
amplifiers. I do some minor maintenance (recaps, reverting mods back
to stock) for friends' amplifiers, so I would offer to test their
tubes during servicing, as well.

It seems that there are some negatives associated with this tester,
then. Being the adventurous type =), what would be a fair offer
anyway?

I understand the unit probably needs calibration, but not being a tube-
tester guru, is there anyway of checking it out before hand to get an
idea that it more or less functions? I think the seller may have some
tubes on site I could use...

BTW, what is that contraption to the left of the tester in the
picture? Looks like it has some sockets in there, is that to test
different tubes (compactrons, etc.)?

Peace,
Chris

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 14, 7:41 pm, wrote:
On Jun 13, 3:10 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:





On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:

Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your insight. I was looking for something to test the
many tubes I have stockpiled over the years for my hi-fi and guitar
amplifiers. I do some minor maintenance (recaps, reverting mods back
to stock) for friends' amplifiers, so I would offer to test their
tubes during servicing, as well.

It seems that there are some negatives associated with this tester,
then. Being the adventurous type =), what would be a fair offer
anyway?

I understand the unit probably needs calibration, but not being a tube-
tester guru, is there anyway of checking it out before hand to get an
idea that it more or less functions? I think the seller may have some
tubes on site I could use...

BTW, what is that contraption to the left of the tester in the
picture? Looks like it has some sockets in there, is that to test
different tubes (compactrons, etc.)?

Peace,
Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is likely that that contraption is an adaptor for sockets and/or
specialized tubes not built into the OEM tester. These testers were
made in many iterations through 1975, and earlier models (the 539C
started production in the mid-50s) may have required adaptors for Euro
and/or highly specialized tubes. These were *not* usually purchased by
general service people, they would never have the need. They were
(usually) purchased by companies or individuals who had low-volume,
special purpose needs. My unit was originally purchased (by the metal
tag) by GE Re-entry Systems Division, as an example.

To get an idea of its functionality, get at least a couple known-good
heavy output-type tubes (6L6, 6CA7, or such), and a couple of common
audio-types such as the 12AX7. Also, if you can find one, a known-good
6AQ8.

If these test out, then you are fine excepting calibration... and that
is not difficult. If the power-tubes come up weak, the odds are (95:5)
that the 83 tube is bad. Of the remaining 5%, 4% to work sockets and/
or dirty switches and/or the other rectifier tube. 1% for everything
else. These things are built like tanks with very heavy-duty switches
and controls.

Fair price.... That is entirely between you and your gods. Fairly
spavined 539Cs will often fetch over $1000 on eBay. I saw one fairly
pristine specimen go at nearly $3000 some time back. IMO, both those
prices are just plain NUTS! Personally, I paid $100 for mine in
excellent condition and with all the updates about 9 years back, and
that is about the most I would ever pay for a tube tester.... well,
maybe I would pay $200 for a Cardomatic, but that would be as a
collectible, not for its utility. The 539-series is far more 'useful'
in typical audio-hobby applications albeit much more of a PITA to
use. I am an inveterate bottom-fisher, and here in the Land-O-Tubes,
see lots of equipment commonly at very good prices. So my point of
view is warped as to pricing. The consensus as was reached in a
discussion held recently at Kutztown amongst a group of radio
collectors was that $400 for a working example with no defects (other
than perhaps-weak rectifier tubes and dirt) is a fair price... radio
collectors are at the very least parsimonious. Cheap. Tight.

Several outfits will sell you calibration tubes (and instructions)
that are remarkably easy to use if you can follow instructions. In all
seriousness, this is one of the very few stock testers that I could
suggest with a straight face to anyone who had any inkling towards
doing genuine quality-tests of tubes as well as any level of matching.
The Triplett 3444A is another highly-regarded tester, but it cannot be
used for matching without significant additions/changes. As is the
case with the TV/U 7s and other mil.spec. testers.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Jun 14, 3:17 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
To get an idea of its functionality, get at least a couple known-good
heavy output-type tubes (6L6, 6CA7, or such), and a couple of common
audio-types such as the 12AX7. Also, if you can find one, a known-good
6AQ8.

If these test out, then you are fine excepting calibration... and that
is not difficult. If the power-tubes come up weak, the odds are (95:5)
that the 83 tube is bad. Of the remaining 5%, 4% to work sockets and/
or dirty switches and/or the other rectifier tube. 1% for everything
else. These things are built like tanks with very heavy-duty switches
and controls.

Peter,

I am unsure how to exactly test a known-good 6L6 in regards to the
procedure as I have never used any tube tester before, much less this
one.

About the most I know is 1) plug the 6L6 in the octal socket and 2)
turn power on... Any quick instruction you could provide for an idea
of the unit's functionality would be most welcomed. Unless of course
too difficult to...

[general disrepair]

I believe that just about all tube testers except military testers were
offered to the public. My 1958 Allied catalog lists the RCA WT-100A for
almost $800.

Testers are a very personal thing. My two cents say to get one and spend a
while getting used to it. You'll quickly be able to tell good tubes from
bad. The 539 series are fine instruments and if the price is right, and the
electrical condition is good, go for it.

I've got a lot of testers (past obsession) and believe it or not, a lowly
Sencore Mighty Mite sits on my bench for general good/bad testing. I only
break out the fancier testers to try and match tubes, which I don't put that
much stock in anyway.

There's a lot of great information on line about testers, and even the
experts, such as Alan Douglas are very approachable.

One last parting note. Before spending big money on a tester, think of all
the new matched tubes you can buy with the same money.






"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 14, 6:03 pm, SpaceCharge 1 wrote:
wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

Actually the KS-15874-L2 was probably the most sophisticated tester
offered to the public, way more complicated than the 539 with regulated
power supplies and had 8 tubes in the circuit.

A very nice tester indeed. The manual may be found at:

http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/hickok/ks15874l2/

And it was designed for volume testing rather than onsies-precision
testing as with the 539 series. This specific model was commissioned
by WE from Hickok for their specific needs. It was never actually
"offered to the public" as that model number, but made exclusively for
WE and their contractors.

The Cardomatics were offered to the Public.

The 539 will be more useful to the typical user of this group. Lord
Valve would appreciate the speed and user-friendliness of the
Cardomatics... but few others would ever have his needs. And LV would
then need additional means to do matching anyway.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" said:


Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot? I have both
the AVO CT 160 (military model) and the Mk IV (a workshop/lab
unit) I am thinking about putting some pics and brief user instructions
on my website if anyone is interested.


Iain,
This site may be of interest to you:
http://www.crowthornetubes.com/valvetest.htm

My trusty Mk.III is still going strong, BTW. ;-)
Not much use for it, lately..........

Thanks for the link Sander. I have bookmarked it.
My CT 160 is marked 110th Regt Royal Artillery, and comes
in the standard battleship grey case. The MkIV looks like
it was made yesterday (and what styling:-)

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 14, 3:06 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Jun 13, 5:54 am, wrote:
Hi all,

Someone I know has seen one of these for sale. Not sure what model or
if it's any good to test guitar amp tubes with. Quick research is
telling me this is a 539c(?) and if so is a good tester.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7233/hick1al4.jpg

Thanks!

That appears to be a 539C or B with an additional connection at the
bottom.

http://oldtube.com/Hickok539C-21.jpg

http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pics/Syl9.jpg

gives you larger pictures. The former is the C, the latter the B.

The 539C is considered to be the holy grail of tube-testers here in
North America and (with additional instruments and proper
calibration), capable of matching tubes correctly (within its
limitations, of course) as well as doing actual quality tests. The
539B is its very near match. The two are of the very, very, very few
such testers out there.

They are not user-friendly, require proper calibration, and should
have their 83 mercury rectifiers replaced out-of-hand with a SS unit,
a PITA to clean, and the 0 - 10V bias-adjust pot could use upgrading
if you do not have surgeon's fingers, but after all that they are
effective testers capable of giving good information.

They are also well-supported in the after-market, having achieved
almost cult status.

Hmm. That's a pretty impressive tester - though at first sight not too
user friendly:-)

We don't see Hickok very often here in Europe, but the various models
from AVO (Gt Britain) and Funke and Neuberger (Germany) are not
uncommon. The AVO Mk IV is the most sought-after. The last model,
type CT163 is rarely seen.

Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot? I have both
the AVO CT 160 (military model) and the Mk IV (a workshop/lab
unit) I am thinking about putting some pics and brief user instructions
on my website if anyone is interested.

Regards to all
Iain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Hickok 539-series, with the addition of various aspects of a VOM
can:

Accurately measure plate and grid currents.
Vary bias.
Measure on multiple scales.
Allow external bias voltages to be applied.
Usual other suspects (gas, shorts, life... also within the realm of
very good emissions-only testers).
Allow AC-over-DC indication on tube diodes.... this is put badly, but
it can be derived from the readings if there is significant AC
leakage. And when testing something like a 5AR4/GZ34, this is
important.
Reverse voltages on the grid (can't remember if I ever used that
feature).
And a few other things that I do not remember in detail.
Handle a KT-88/6550 under full test load for as long as is needful and
without heating up.
It is a true GM-type tester as well, of course.

I would guess that apart from socket differences, there is not much to
choose between the TOL AVOs and the Hickok 539-series as far as
capabilities are concerned. But for much more information, do a search
on the net. This is a "Cult" tester as noted, so there is LOTS out
there.

$750 new in the 1950s!

I have the 539B that I acquired some years back when Leon Fertik
closed his doors... he had three of them and sold me one for about
pocket change at the time because I fixed his other two (the 83s had
crapped out as is typical). If you ask nicely, I will take the unit
out of the case and send you pictures of the innards. That would be 16
chassis screws and a few other fasteners... It is about due for its
cleaning anyway (and calibration check), and this would give me an
excuse to do it.

the BAMA site has the charts, revisions and service manuals, last I
looked.

Peter. I would very much like to see some pics of the Hickok, which
as somethinbg of an unknown quantity, is of interest to people in this part
of the world. They have a very solid reputation! Do you have a website?
If not, I would be happy to devote a page to your pics on mine
if you would care to write some text to go with them describing the
general principle of operation.

Best regards
Iain

[[email protected]]

Just to clarify that the last posting was made in haste as I only had
about an hour before viewing the tester and that the seller had a trip
to make and would not be back for awhile. In fact, I just got back
from the seller's place...with the tester!

It was stored in an improvised shed and so was not stored in the best
of conditions. As such, it was a little rough, but nothing too bad I
guess. Hopefully the humidity and salt air were kind to it (tester was
in a beach community). The latches and corners are rusty, but I am
hoping if the lid was on during its life, then minimal damage done, if
any. Right? Anyway, there were no manuals and only one tube to test
(the box said 5960, the tube inside was a 7-pin with a short, stubby
bottle, I couldn't find an entry on the roll chart). I plugged the
tube in, fired 'er up and fiddled with the controls trying to put some
thought behind the various functions. I did manage to get each of the
three meters to move in a variety of ways. In the end, I offered the
seller $60 which I thought was fair, considering. I figured if the
tester was totally shot that I could sell it on ebay for at least that
and recoup my $.

I am hoping to have this thing gone through and brought back up to
snuff. I was hoping that Chris Haedt could have gone through this
tester as he was the man when it came to Hickoks, but learned that he
unfortunately passed away. Anyone have any recommendations on where
would be the next best place to go through it? Am I right in thinking
that this tester can be saved without spending too much if the meters
were responsive or am I just being naive? I'm thinking maybe $150 or
so... what do you think?

Oh, and BTW, is there any other literature besides this one that I
should be aware of?

ftp://bama.sbc.edu/downloads/hickok/539/539c.pdf

Thanks,
Chris

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 14, 10:01 pm, wrote:
On Jun 14, 3:17 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:

To get an idea of its functionality, get at least a couple known-good
heavy output-type tubes (6L6, 6CA7, or such), and a couple of common
audio-types such as the 12AX7. Also, if you can find one, a known-good
6AQ8.

If these test out, then you are fine excepting calibration... and that
is not difficult. If the power-tubes come up weak, the odds are (95:5)
that the 83 tube is bad. Of the remaining 5%, 4% to work sockets and/
or dirty switches and/or the other rectifier tube. 1% for everything
else. These things are built like tanks with very heavy-duty switches
and controls.

Peter,

I am unsure how to exactly test a known-good 6L6 in regards to the
procedure as I have never used any tube tester before, much less this
one.

About the most I know is 1) plug the 6L6 in the octal socket and 2)
turn power on... Any quick instruction you could provide for an idea
of the unit's functionality would be most welcomed. Unless of course
too difficult to...

If you have a 6L6 that you know is good, you test it as a 6L6 in the
Hickok. You should get a good reading. This does nothing for
calibration, it merely verifies the basic functions of the tester and
the current passing ability of the 83 under load. It is no more
complicated than that. The reason to have several is that you should
show some variation between them, which verifies sensitivity.

As you suggest the unit was kept in a salt-laden environment, cleaning
will be critical. I would still replace the 83 out of hand, and think
long and hard about replacing the 5Y3 as well, both with SS
replacements. *THEN* recalibrate. There are a couple of outfits that
do restorations and upgrades of these testers, last I looked the cost
ran to $300-$600 depending on whether one wanted the new 'digital'
meters or not, go figure. There is *nothing* going on inside these
things that is either overly complicated or beyond the skills of a
normally competent, patient and careful individual.

www.vacuumtubes.com. (Michael Marx) will sell you calibration kits,
upgrades, revised tube charts and all the other items you might need.
The Bama mirror site will show you the manual, the calibration
procedure and so forth. You have a very fine instrument, so it would
be a good thing for you to get into its care and feeding. For what you
paid for it, invest the difference in cleaning and calibrating (and
understanding), and you will be far ahead of the game.

One more thing, about every part and piece of that unit may be found
if repairs are needed. They were made in some quantity, and share a
great many parts with other instruments. But if all three of your
meters are functioning correctly, that is most of the battle in terms
of hard-to-replace stuff.

When/if you remove it from the case, just be very carefull that you do
not bunge, bend, break or pinch anything inside.

Enjoy! You done good.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, "general disrepair" wrote:

One last parting note. Before spending big money on a tester, think of all
the new matched tubes you can buy with the same money.

It has been my experience that so-called "matched" sets commonly
available these days are not. Be that as it may, your Sencore is an
excellent tester for the purposes you note. I keep a Simpson 555 for
just that and use the Hickok far less often. I do matching not so much
other than to make sure that any amp that crosses my bench has the
output pairs at least closely matched to each other even though they
may not have come in that way. It is also useful for indicating (*not*
"determining") tube age and potential future longevity, beyond the ken
of emissions-testers in any meaningful way.

It's all in accordance with one's intentions. 99-44/100% of the time,
an emissions-tester capable of Shorts and Gas will do just fine for
most stuff for most hobbyists. VERY serious tube users will build
their own test rigs to meet their specific needs. It's that group in
between that will want a very good tester and be willing to invest
either the time or the treasure to get it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Jun 15, 1:10 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
As you suggest the unit was kept in a salt-laden environment, cleaning
will be critical. I would still replace the 83 out of hand, and think
long and hard about replacing the 5Y3 as well, both with SS
replacements. *THEN* recalibrate. There are a couple of outfits that
do restorations and upgrades of these testers, last I looked the cost
ran to $300-$600 depending on whether one wanted the new 'digital'
meters or not, go figure. There is *nothing* going on inside these
things that is either overly complicated or beyond the skills of a
normally competent, patient and careful individual.

www.vacuumtubes.com. (Michael Marx) will sell you calibration kits,
upgrades, revised tube charts and all the other items you might need.
The Bama mirror site will show you the manual, the calibration
procedure and so forth. You have a very fine instrument, so it would
be a good thing for you to get into its care and feeding. For what you
paid for it, invest the difference in cleaning and calibrating (and
understanding), and you will be far ahead of the game.

One more thing, about every part and piece of that unit may be found
if repairs are needed. They were made in some quantity, and share a
great many parts with other instruments. But if all three of your
meters are functioning correctly, that is most of the battle in terms
of hard-to-replace stuff.

When/if you remove it from the case, just be very carefull that you do
not bunge, bend, break or pinch anything inside.

Enjoy! You done good.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thank you Peter for your words of wisdom, they are much appreciated
from a tube tester noo-b.

I take it then that I will be able to go through the unit and do
cleaning and replacing of the electrolytics as I consider myself
competent, patient and careful (I haven't blown any amps up yet! =). I
am concerned about calibration, though, as the 6L6 type that Hickok
used to sell for this purpose is obviously NLA. Also, I have seen some
discussion on another page regarding SS rectifiers that should be
avoided in the 539C:

http://wendellhall.com/page11.html

"Even after the tester is re-calibrated the percentage of difference
will be different on each of the tubes depending on their power
requirements."

Thoughts?

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 15, 4:52 pm, wrote:

"Even after the tester is re-calibrated the percentage of difference
will be different on each of the tubes depending on their power
requirements."

Thoughts?

Mpfffff... and with all due respect: Rectifier tubes have
characteristics that include voltage drop and loading. An 83 mercury
rectifier is considered a "low-loss" tube and can be very easily
duplicated using two 1N4007 diodes and two 10-ohm, 3+watt resistors
(yes, three watts is overkill, but cheap enough). Install this in a 4-
pin socket for a direct drop-in, no-mod replacement.

As to the 5Y3, there are similar adaptors out there that will do the
same thing, apart from the fact that the 5Y3 is still a common (and
cheap) tube.

Then, calibration: Get the kit from Marx or whomever, do the
calibration, check the meter response, you will be fine. You adjust
the line voltage to each tube, you adjust the bias to each tube, and
each similar tube is tested similarly. So as far as matching is
concerned, you will still be able to match. As far as absolutely
accurate GM is concerned, your relative differences will aways be the
same, if you are 1-5% off, so what as that is no issue in actual
application. Marginal will remain marginal, and bad will absolutely
remain bad.

Lastly, if anything and given that this tester uses an unregulated
supply, a SS rectifier capable of passing as much or more DC current
than an 83 will only help the system. For low-draw and small-signal
tubes the effect will be nil. For high-draw tubes such as the
KT88/6550, you will actually get *more* accurate readings as the
voltage sag (potentially) will be less than with anything other than a
brand-new 83 and then only for the very first few hours of use.

I am trying not to write B***-S*** with reference to the no-SS
replacement opinion.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[general disrepair]

I couldn't agree more. When I'm testing tubes on equipment I'm working on,
all I want to know is if the tube is bad, the faster the better. I use a
"better" tester to sort through tubes and group together ones that test
similarly. Although, as time goes on, I'm much less likely to use used tubes
in something I've spent a lot of time repairing, or in something valuable.

I have been thinking about trying to match output tubes using a push pull
power amp. I'm thinking that I could leave in one tube, and cycle through a
number of used tubes while using a bias probe. That way I could identify
tubes that draw the same amount of current. I'm not sure how valid this
approach would be. Would this be meaningful?

TIA



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jun 14, 10:26 pm, "general disrepair" wrote:

One last parting note. Before spending big money on a tester, think of
all
the new matched tubes you can buy with the same money.

It has been my experience that so-called "matched" sets commonly
available these days are not. Be that as it may, your Sencore is an
excellent tester for the purposes you note. I keep a Simpson 555 for
just that and use the Hickok far less often. I do matching not so much
other than to make sure that any amp that crosses my bench has the
output pairs at least closely matched to each other even though they
may not have come in that way. It is also useful for indicating (*not*
"determining") tube age and potential future longevity, beyond the ken
of emissions-testers in any meaningful way.

It's all in accordance with one's intentions. 99-44/100% of the time,
an emissions-tester capable of Shorts and Gas will do just fine for
most stuff for most hobbyists. VERY serious tube users will build
their own test rigs to meet their specific needs. It's that group in
between that will want a very good tester and be willing to invest
either the time or the treasure to get it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Iain Churches]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:06:07 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

Can the Hickok do anything which the AVO cannot?

Nope.


The AVO is designed around the 9-way Selector Switch
which enables one to "dial up" the settings for the tube being
tested.

What topology does the Hickok use - is it
punched cards or something like that?

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:07:57 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

What topology does the Hickok use - is it
punched cards or something like that?

Most Hickok's used selectors while the Cardmatic line used plastic punched
cards. The 539x used selectors.

Check http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/a/padgett46/hickok.htm for more info.

Thanks for the link, Francois.
The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Iain

[Iain Churches]

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in messagenews:1i4b739pl3srsij1o0ifipjvrb3eev2aca@4ax .com... On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.

Francois & Iain:

I will tear down the 539B one evening this week for calibration &
cleaning, and send you pictures. It takes longer to pull it out of the
case than to do the the rest of it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Nelson Gietz]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
messagenews:1i4b739pl3srsij1o0ifipjvrb3eev2aca@4ax .com... On Sun, 17 Jun
2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.

Francois & Iain:

I will tear down the 539B one evening this week for calibration &
cleaning, and send you pictures. It takes longer to pull it out of the
case than to do the the rest of it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

PW;
Could you post 'em on abpr as well?
Nelson

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 18, 11:02 am, "Nelson Gietz" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

oups.com...
On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote: "François Yves Le Gal" wrote in

messagenews:1i4b739pl3srsij1o0ifipjvrb3eev2aca@4ax .com... On Sun, 17 Jun
2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"


wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.

Francois & Iain:

I will tear down the 539B one evening this week for calibration &
cleaning, and send you pictures. It takes longer to pull it out of the
case than to do the the rest of it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

PW;
Could you post 'em on abpr as well?
Nelson

I will send them to you directly if you wish, or others have offered
to post them to a website. Either way, let me know.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Nelson Gietz]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 18, 11:02 am, "Nelson Gietz" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

oups.com...
On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in

messagenews:1i4b739pl3srsij1o0ifipjvrb3eev2aca@4ax .com... On Sun, 17 Jun
2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"


wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.

Francois & Iain:

I will tear down the 539B one evening this week for calibration &
cleaning, and send you pictures. It takes longer to pull it out of the
case than to do the the rest of it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

PW;
Could you post 'em on abpr as well?
Nelson

I will send them to you directly if you wish, or others have offered
to post them to a website. Either way, let me know.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Direct is good. My address on this post will work.
I don't own one a 539B, but admit to curiousity.
Thanks!
Nelson

[Iain Churches]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 17, 4:10 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
messagenews:1i4b739pl3srsij1o0ifipjvrb3eev2aca@4ax .com... On Sun, 17 Jun
2007 19:38:01 +0300, "Iain Churches"

wrote:

The Hickok doesn't look as intuitive as the AVO.

Agreed, but both were excellent tube testers - some of the best ever
manufactured.

I would be very interested to see a Hickok. It looks as
though the OP on this thread has made a very good find indeed.


I will tear down the 539B one evening this week for calibration &
cleaning, and send you pictures. It takes longer to pull it out of the
case than to do the the rest of it.

Peter. Many thanks - greatly appreciated. The 539B has such a good
reputation and I feel I have missed out never having seen one.. A few
lines of text re the operation would be of interest. I am doing a page on
the AVO CT160 (the small military unit) and also the Mk IV. I will
post the links to this group when complete. It may be of interest
to someone.

Regards
Iain