Recommendations for a vacum tube tester

+1

@tksteingraber Usually when there are multiple scales for umhOs, there is a switch to go along with it. So this particular example is puzzling. Unless the meter was replaced at some point. I've used a tester like this, but the last time I saw one was about 23 years ago... As I recall though, it worked pretty well.

The reason I asked is that the number listed on the Hickok chart does not appear to be the min and I read it was what an average new tube should test at and I wanted to verify that with experienced Hickok testers. An example…the 12at7 is listed at 4000 on the chart which is in the middle of good on the meter and replace begins at 2600 (65%) on the meter, 12au7 is listed at 2200 and replace begins at 1300 (60%). 12ax7 is listed at 1250 and is too low to follow the gm meter good/replace readings and needs to use the good-bad test by adjusting the english down.

@tksteingraber I would go with what the chart says. I've never seen a tester that showed a range. I own several and have had about 20 in my time; never seen a tester that showed results as you describe. But I've seen plenty of testers that had meters with 'replace' and '?'... by your description, it sounds as if someone replaced the meter on your tester. By 'english' do you mean 'bias'?

 From what i read it is the average of what a new testing tube should test.  Tubes can go higher or lower but no more than 30% lower than that number to be considered good.  Sound right or not?  Thanks

@tksteingraber If the tube does not meet the minimum reading as indicated in the tube tester chart, it is reject. None of this 30% lower thing. Wherever you read that, its incorrect.

In 1950 they were $25

My tester was $159 in 1959….

Cheap ones ('emissions' testers) did but a decent (transconductance) tester could cost about $800 back then. That's about $10K in today's dollars- a significant but essential investment for a TV repair shop.

@ieales Awesome!!