Any opinions on Hickpk 230 Tube Tester for use on Guitar Amps

[J.P.]

I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.

[[email protected]]

J.P. wrote:
> I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
> unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.

It isn't so much the tester as the user of same. Do you understand what
the various types of testers actually do? And more importantly, what
they do not do?

If so, and _IF_ this Hickok also does *reliable* tests for "SHORTS" and
"GAS", then it is a worthwhile tester. At $200, however, an Emissions
Only (And the Hickok 230 IS ABSOLUTELY emissions-only) tube-tester is
nothing short of highway robbery. $50 for a top-flight emissions-tester
+ $25 for the Hickok name is about tops for this unit assuming all the
paperwork and up-to-date charts.

But if you want an equally useful tester at a fraction of that price,
look for a Heath TC-1 or TC-2 or TC-3. Cheap, well-supported, upgraded
charts available... usually reliable.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[J.P.]

I am a total rookie on tubes and testers. I am slowly learning about
guitar amps and am thinking that my next bench tool needs to be a tube
tester but need one to be reasonable as well as reliable. I have read
that the Hickok 539C is the "one to have" but in reality, I just need
to be able to make sure the tubes I am going to use are good quality.
I also assume that there will be a learning curve involved in any tube
tester I get. So far, I have a Fluke meter and am wanting to figure
out and then buy the next tool as I can only afford one at a time.
I would appreciate any suggestions... thank you...J.P.

On 30 Aug 2006 14:14:07 -0700, " > wrote:

>
>J.P. wrote:
>> I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
>> unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.
>
>It isn't so much the tester as the user of same. Do you understand what
>the various types of testers actually do? And more importantly, what
>they do not do?
>
>If so, and _IF_ this Hickok also does *reliable* tests for "SHORTS" and
>"GAS", then it is a worthwhile tester. At $200, however, an Emissions
>Only (And the Hickok 230 IS ABSOLUTELY emissions-only) tube-tester is
>nothing short of highway robbery. $50 for a top-flight emissions-tester
>+ $25 for the Hickok name is about tops for this unit assuming all the
>paperwork and up-to-date charts.
>
>But if you want an equally useful tester at a fraction of that price,
>look for a Heath TC-1 or TC-2 or TC-3. Cheap, well-supported, upgraded
>charts available... usually reliable.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

J.P. wrote:
> I am a total rookie on tubes and testers. I am slowly learning about
> guitar amps and am thinking that my next bench tool needs to be a tube
> tester but need one to be reasonable as well as reliable. I have read
> that the Hickok 539C is the "one to have" but in reality, I just need
> to be able to make sure the tubes I am going to use are good quality.
> I also assume that there will be a learning curve involved in any tube
> tester I get. So far, I have a Fluke meter and am wanting to figure
> out and then buy the next tool as I can only afford one at a time.
> I would appreciate any suggestions... thank you...J.P.
>
> On 30 Aug 2006 14:14:07 -0700, " > wrote:
>
> >
> >J.P. wrote:
> >> I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
> >> unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.
> >
> >It isn't so much the tester as the user of same. Do you understand what
> >the various types of testers actually do? And more importantly, what
> >they do not do?
> >
> >If so, and _IF_ this Hickok also does *reliable* tests for "SHORTS" and
> >"GAS", then it is a worthwhile tester. At $200, however, an Emissions
> >Only (And the Hickok 230 IS ABSOLUTELY emissions-only) tube-tester is
> >nothing short of highway robbery. $50 for a top-flight emissions-tester
> >+ $25 for the Hickok name is about tops for this unit assuming all the
> >paperwork and up-to-date charts.
> >
> >But if you want an equally useful tester at a fraction of that price,
> >look for a Heath TC-1 or TC-2 or TC-3. Cheap, well-supported, upgraded
> >charts available... usually reliable.
> >
> >Peter Wieck
> >Wyncote, PA

That Hickok will do no better than help you make a "Go/No Go" decision.
It cannot match, nor tell you much about quality, future life, or much
else. That being the case, there is no need to get the Hickok name for
such little information, and why I mentioned the Heath. Also Eico and
several others are out there at reasonable prices and equal utility.

I keep a 539B, the earlier version of the C you mention. Only on the
occasional blue moon (the second full moon in a month, BTW) do I ever
need its capacities, such as when I am matching output tubes or
such-like. Most of the time my very simple Simpson unit does just fine.


My primary hobby is the repair and restoration of vintage radios, so
one would expect I might test a lot of tubes. Not really. I test far
more for audio stuff as some audio circuits are far less tolerant than
radio circuits. I would suspect the same for instruments. But in all
seriousness, you need to keep a couple of things in mind:

The most likely potential damage from a faulty tube is via some sort of
short. So, the very first thing any tube tester should do is test for
shorts, especially hot-filament shorts. It *MUST* test for shorts. That
being written:

a) despite rumors to the contrary, tubes last a LONG time in
well-designed circuits and operated with reason of their tolerances.
Easily thousands of hours.
b) the best test of any tube is in-circuit.
c) unless a circuit _requires_ a high level of matching, a decent
emissions-tester with good shorts-testing will be adequate for 95% of
most requirements. If you are into that last 4.95%, then you MUST go
for a proper Mutual Conductance Tester. If you are into that last
0.05%, then you will need a laboratory-grade tester, of which the
539-series is only one. But definitely not the 230.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Phil Allison]

"J.P."
>
>I am a total rookie on tubes and testers. I am slowly learning about
> guitar amps and am thinking that my next bench tool needs to be a tube
> tester..


** Then think again - that is the very *last *thing you need.

The best tube tester in the world is the AMP you have in front of you !


> So far, I have a Fluke meter and am wanting to figure
> out and then buy the next tool as I can only afford one at a time.


** For heaven's sake buy yourself a scope next.

You can do almost NOTHING in audio without one.





........ Phil

[[email protected]]

J.P. wrote:
> I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
> unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.


I would get a copy of RCA's receiving tube manual and read up
on their section on testing tubes. Then I would make my own.


Surf my site: http://www.RetroTech.ca

[Phil Allison]

>


** WARNING: Google Groper ****WIT



> J.P. wrote:
>> I am looking at one of these for $200 plus shipping. Is this a good
>> unit/choice for use on guitar amp workbench? Thanks...J.P.
>
> I would get a copy of RCA's receiving tube manual and read up
> on their section on testing tubes. Then I would make my own.
>


** Just like this same ASININE MASTURBATING ****WIT "read"

a few old copies of Playboy Magazine ..........

- then went down to the garage and made one of his own !!!!!!!!!!!!


ROTFLMAO !!!





........ Phil

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> I would get a copy of RCA's receiving tube manual and read up
> on their section on testing tubes. Then I would make my own.

For that kind of time/money, he could have two of the 539-series and
one Card-O-Matic to boot.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA