eico 666 tube tester

[chrisinsc]

Would an eico 666 tube tester be a good unit to pair with a jackson 648?

 

[battradio]

The 667 will test newer tubes than the 648 , or the 666 with an adapter for the newer tubes would be be a better choice if you can find one .

I have a 666 as aback up tester to my Hickok 539C .

 

[Patrick620]

The "Devil's tester". I have one as a back up tester. Make sure and get the calibration and updated tube chart info. On some tubes there is some discrepancy on the settings.

 

[chrisinsc]

Will the Eico 666 test any attributes of a tube that the Jackson 648 won't?

Thanks for the responses.

 

[roberts67]

Hello!

I believe the 666 is a mutual conductance tester and the 648 is definitely not. I think the issue is that you are not testing power tubes at real operating voltages and the Gm results can be plus or minus 40% of the actual value. Old tube testers were never designed to be precision test instruments including most Hickok's. At that level of precision you are getting more or less a good/bad test of the tube. There are many versions of the 648 and they are really well built testers. If you don't have the reference book on the 648 from Jim Cross at Vacuum Tubes Inc, I highly recommend it. He has calibration instructions for the different versions and all of the issued tube charts and supplements.

 

[gadget73]

The 666 and the 667 dont read in Gm. You get a 0-120% gauge with the old bad/?/good scale. Its not a bad tester, but it really depends what you're after. I have a 667 myself and it hasn't lied to me yet with regards to finding shot tubes, but they may not all be as good as the tester says in circuit either.

 

[chrisinsc]

Looks like I am ok with just the Jackson 648 especially if I get the book. Thanks again for the input.

 

[Sam Cogley]

The Jackson is technically an emissions tester, but it's an odd, improved version of the standard, bare-bones emissions test.