Hickok 752 vs. AVO- CT 160

Stanley Jobson

unread,

Feb 18, 2003, 3:23:08 AM2/18/03

to

Sorry if this has been asked before, Newbie at testers.
Does anyone know the main differences between these (Hickok 752 vs. AVO- CT
160 )
two testers. Plus & Minuses. Also is the Hickok 580A and /or the AVO 163
better than
both of the above ?

Thank you in Advance

señor loco

unread,

Feb 18, 2003, 4:31:28 PM2/18/03

to

752 vs. AVO- CT160
apples & oranges

avo's are for european tubes

Hickoks better for US made tubes

and yes, the 580A and 163 would be the uprated versions of those testers,
respectively

señor loco out

"Stanley Jobson" <vandalayi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2sqkj$567$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...

Stanley Jobson

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 2:30:46 AM2/19/03

to

Senor Loco I read "the CT160 has 22 valve bases covering all the major valve
types likely to be encountered"

Wouldn't the AVO do most all tubes with 22 valve bases?

TIA

"señor loco" <m...@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:Np6dnRk58ZK...@comcast.com...

Peter McMullin

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 1:13:13 PM2/19/03

to

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:31:28 -0500, "señor loco" <m...@myhouse.com>
wrote:

>752 vs. AVO- CT160
>apples & oranges
>
>avo's are for european tubes
>
>Hickoks better for US made tubes
>
>and yes, the 580A and 163 would be the uprated versions of those testers,
>respectively
>
>señor loco out

Hey, señor loco, care to elaborate?

My CT160 seems to do a fine job testing my 6L6, 6SN7, 6BQ5, 807, etc.,
except of course my gm readings are in mA/V instead of those silly
micromhos ;^)

I've never used a Hickock and really, I'm not trying to be a smartass.

Kind Regards,
Peter

To reply via email, change "nospam" to "net".
A surplus of information never facilitates simple decisions.

señor loco

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 2:39:19 PM2/19/03

to

señor loco was referring more to the amount of tube data available, rather
than the sockets or measurement type.

bet I can name lots of obscure tubes that there is data for a TV-7 or
similar Hickok circuit tester, and that data is not available for the Avo's
readily, (not that you couldn't derive it, given enough time)

if you mostly test common tube tubes, then both would serve fine, with the
Avo's having more European tube compatibility.

señor loco

"Peter McMullin" <pe...@hurontario.nospam> wrote in message
news:a2i75v473cpli2us4...@4ax.com...

Peter McMullin

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 3:59:15 PM2/19/03

to

Hi señor loco,

I guess I'll join the top-posting club for this thread (some inline)
:)

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:39:19 -0500, "señor loco" <m...@myhouse.com>
wrote:

>señor loco was referring more to the amount of tube data available, rather

>than the sockets or measurement type.
>
>bet I can name lots of obscure tubes that there is data for a TV-7 or
>similar Hickok circuit tester, and that data is not available for the Avo's
>readily, (not that you couldn't derive it, given enough time)

You've got me at a disadvantage since I'm at work, and it's been a
while since I did any tube testing, but it seems to me that the AVO
Valve Data manual has a more complete listing of North American tube
types than I've found in any one of my (GE, Sylvania, RCA) receiving
tube manuals. It pretty much doubles as an international valve
cross-reference guide.

Even if a valve type is not listed in the AVO manual, all you need to
quickly set up a CT160 (is this an oxymoron? ;)) is the pinout and
typical electrode voltages from the valve manufacturer's data.

>if you mostly test common tube tubes, then both would serve fine, with the
>Avo's having more European tube compatibility.

Sorry I still can't agree with this distinction. I believe there may
be other factors which might affect the choice, such as available
ranges of anode and screen voltages, or grid 1 bias voltage which
might make one tester more suitable for testing certain small signal
vs. power tubes, for example.

It would be nice if Jim McShane or Ned Carlson would step in with some
insights, since I know they both use both types of tester. My
experience only extends to the CT160.

Kind Regards,
Peter

Tonni

unread,

Feb 20, 2003, 4:49:12 PM2/20/03

to

Hi!

Some years ago i got my hands on a TV 7 D/U, and was pretty pleased! - Thats
,until i stumbled over a AVO Mk III.....!

Why? - Its pretty hard to test a tube w/o a list of settings for the TV 7,
but the AVO has all the parameters described on the dials. Both Ia Va Vg Vg2
mA/V....!!! - That's why i've got a AVO MkIII AND a 160 in use!!!
And the TV 7? - It's sold!!!

Best regards
OZ4ACL, Tonni

"Peter McMullin" <pe...@hurontario.nospam> skrev i en meddelelse
news:kmp75v02tbtqps7l3...@4ax.com...

Alan Douglas

unread,

Feb 19, 2003, 6:29:19 PM2/19/03

to

Hi,
I was hoping someone would comment who uses both testers regularly.
I'm of the opinion that the Hickoks should be faster to use, because
you don't have to wait for the tube to warm up and stabilize. But I
have only used the VCM-163 myself. I would also expect that the
Hickoks are easier to set up, but that would only be important if you
had a lot of tubes to test.

Cheers, Alan

West

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 1:53:20 AM2/22/03

to

I asked this a while back, but the thread slanted off into an eloquent, but
irrelevant topic. How to you make a matched pair or quad and which is the
best tester for doing it? Thanks
Cordially,
west

"Stanley Jobson" <vandalayi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2sqkj$567$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...

West

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 4:45:19 AM2/22/03

to

"Stanley Jobson" <vandalayi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2sqkj$567$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...

What's considered the best Hickock tester? How does the above gentleman's
539C compare with the 752 and 580A? Thank you.
Cordially,
west

Alan Douglas

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 8:20:06 AM2/22/03

to

Hi,
West wanted to know:

>I asked this a while back, but the thread slanted off into an eloquent, but
>irrelevant topic. How to you make a matched pair or quad and which is the
>best tester for doing it? Thanks

You can match for plate current at a fixed grid bias, and for Gm
at equal plate currents. Or both at the same time. You can do the
plate-current matching in the amp, or use an auxiliary milliammeter
with the tube tester. Any tester will do, since you don't need to
know the exact Gms, but only make them equal.

>What's considered the best Hickok tester? How does the above gentleman's

>539C compare with the 752 and 580A?

The best *Hickok* is a Cardmatic, probably the KS 15874 made for
Western Electric. 580As were Hickok's most expensive standard model,
and have lots of advanced features, but mine doesn't work worth a
damn. 752As have a good reputation. 539Cs are popular, but three
times as many Hickok meters in one box means three times the problems.
There's a lot more in my book.

Cheers, Alan

Chuck Harris

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 9:05:05 AM2/22/03

to

Hi Alan,

How does one get a copy of your book?

and,

What's wrong with Hickok meters? Does/did Hickok even make meters?
My 539C has performed flawlessly forever. Should I be expecting it
to eat its meters sometime soon? If so, how do I prevent it?

-Chuck, WA3UQV

Alan Douglas

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 10:17:13 AM2/22/03

to

Hi,
Chuck asked:

>How does one get a copy of your book?

Tube Testers and Classic Electronic Test Gear
http://www.sonoranpublishing.com/tubtesandcla.html

It's available from all the usual suspects, such as Amazon, but
perhaps the cheapest is Antique Radio Classified magazine, which was
offering free shipping the last I knew:

http://www.antiqueradio.com/collbooks.html

Tube Testers and Classic Electronic Test Gear, Douglas. Overview of
pre-1970 radio test equipment. Discusses tube testing & use of
testers. Compares emission, dynamic & mutual conductance testers.
Tabulates & pictures testers from 23 manufacturers. Over 300 photos &
illustrations. 163 pgs. $25.95

>
>What's wrong with Hickok meters? Does/did Hickok even make meters?
>My 539C has performed flawlessly forever. Should I be expecting it
>to eat its meters sometime soon? If so, how do I prevent it?

Yes, Hickok made its own meters. They have more problems with
internal corrosion than most competitive makes, but if yours are
working now, they'll probably stay that way. The DC voltmeters in
539s are particularly troublesome. Keeping them as dry as possible,
would be about all you could do.

Cheers, Alan

Chuck Harris

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 10:57:10 AM2/22/03

to

Thanks Alan.

My 539C is like new inside. I hope it stays
that way.

-Chuck, WA3UQV

Jim McShane

unread,

Feb 22, 2003, 11:10:40 AM2/22/03

to

Let me put in a plug for Alan's book. It's fascinating
reading, and full of great pictures and information. The
tube tester section alone was worth the price of the book,
the other areas he covered were just more frosting on
the cake I highly recommend it (and I don't have any
connection to Alan or the book except I have a copy!).

Jim McShane
Need Tubes? Got a H-K Citation (Pre) Amp?
Check http://pages.prodigy.net/jimmcshane
Repro knobs for Citation gear in stock!

Simon

unread,

Apr 2, 2023, 2:43:05 PM4/2/23

to

Man, Just look at them. It's kind of obvious which is better. My understanding is that the only Hickok that can go toe-to-toe with an AVO from the same era is the military grade TV-7 and it's derivatives.

Peter Wieck

unread,

Apr 3, 2023, 11:47:56 AM4/3/23

to

> Man, Just look at them. It's kind of obvious which is better. My understanding is that the only Hickok that can go toe-to-toe with an AVO from the same era is the military grade TV-7 and it's derivatives.

Yes, 20 years later, but NO, the TV-7 is nowhere near as adept as its reputation. That it is a military tester accounts for its ruggedness, but not for much of anything else. It was designed to do go/no-go tests of tubes in military equipment under field conditions, quickly, and with some ability to distinguish quality - one tube relative to another of the same type. But it is not designed for matching, one cannot measure plate or filament current, anode current, nor any other parameters required to 'match' tubes without considerable additional adaptors and other equipment. One cannot set bias internally, nor supply bias current from the outside.

For any of that, the 539-series is required, with specific reference to the B & the C, which have points built in where all of that may be measured or set.

The AVO may be a bit fussy and complicated, but it is (at least) three times the tester as the 752 - which, put simply, is a non-ruggedized TV-7 in terms of complexity and capacity. That TV-7 testers command insane prices is more a reflection of the ignorance of their buyers than the quality and utility of the tester as it relates to actual function.

NOTE: I keep a Hickok 539B and a Simpson 555 tube tester. For 90% of my work, the 555 does just fine. Only when I need to match will I trot out the 539B.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA