The Reference 6SN7 Thread
Feb 22, 2022 at 10:29 AM Post #5,956 of 10,003
This tube testing business can be a real conundrum, can’t it. I’ve just had 9 6sn7gt type tubes, all from the ‘40s, tested by a professional on a calibrated tester. The NOS figures below are what you folk’s would expect from this machine? Out of the 9 tubes I have 4 that are pretty much at or slightly above NOS and the remaining just below.

Valve test data for 6SN7 X9 18/02/2022

Valve tester AVO VCM 163

Test parameters for type 6SN7
Heater, 6 Volts
Plate, 250Volts
Control Grid, 8Volts Negative

Good/New 6SN7, 9 MA 2.9 MA/V
Been a long time since I had an AVO and obviously don't remember details, but with the plate voltage at 250v and grid voltage at -8v, the plate current should be 9ma for an average NOS value. From what you've noted, it looks like everything is correct as far as the test parameters and bogey value.

Tung Sol 6SN7GT data sheet:

https://frank.pocnet.net/sheets/127/6/6SN7GT.pdf

1645543440168.png
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 11:11 AM Post #5,957 of 10,003
I used to think Amplitrex AT1000 is a great tester, but after reading all the negative reports on the numerous errors in its software and the factor that Amplitrex has NEVER issued any firmware update to correct the reported errors, I have lost my confidence in Amplitrex test results.

For example, the Amplitrex will overstate the 6AS7G and 6080 tubes. Amplitrex claims to use tube datasheet specs to test tubes, so 100% new 6AS7G and 6080 tubes should has a Mutual Conductance of 7000 uMhos according to the RCA 6080/6AS7G datasheets, but Amplitrex incorrectly uses the minimum Mutual Conductance value 5800 uMhos on the RCA datasheets as its 100% new standard to judge 6AS7G / 6080 tubes. Now, a mediocre 5800 uMhos 6AS7G / 6080 tube will be claimed as 100% new when tested on Amplitrex, while in fact it’s merely a used 83% (5800/7000 = 83%) tube, a 17% overstatement from Amplitrex.


There are many other errors reported by users, so I really don’t know if I can trust the Amplitrex test reports. The most terrible thing is that Amplitrex has never issued any firmware update to address the numerous reported errors. My guess is that the programmer who wrote the initial firmware for Amplitrex tester has long left Amplitrex, and Amplitrex just couldn’t or is unwilling to find a capable programmer to update or rewrite the firmware.

Another thing I don’t really like about those computerized testers (like Amplitrex) is that all things are hiding in the codes, it’s like a black box to users, users can never figure out what tube testing parameters are used by the codes and whether they are correct (obviously they’re not always correct, just like the numerous errors reported by Amplitrex users).

Interesting...sharing a few thoughts:

I'm sure Amplitrex has shortfalls like any technology. However, you can say "all the negative reports" about everything and anything in this hobby. I find it more effective to use data demonstrating something above/outside a comparative baseline. When I Google "Hickok tester accuracy" there are many opinions.

For 6SN7, I've found the AT1000 to be helpful (as a buyer) and prefer to other machines, as (in my understanding) it puts decent voltage on the plates. Personally, I prefer to read the digital/quantitative results, for whatever they are worth. By way of example, I was looking at a pair on ebay last week, and the description said NOS Matched (as always)...and description went on to say "no leakage / no shorts" --> As I reviewed the AT1000 screen shots the seller provided... I noticed leakage (measured) for one of the tubes....and asked the seller about it. Perhaps the leakage was irrelevant, but at least I had the opportunity to question the seemingly "perfect description" the seller listed on ebay, using specific data.

Lastly, to your point above on overstatement, I'm not so sure this is a draw-back.... Perhaps the AT1000 is not reliable, but as a digital device it is highly precise in measuring certain tube types. Perhaps precision is what we seek as buyers (every-time), as the reliability (if known / consistent) is manageable, over or under.

I'm going to go call Amplitrex and collect my fees now :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 1:05 PM Post #5,958 of 10,003
Lastly, to your point above on overstatement, I'm not so sure this is a draw-back.... Perhaps the AT1000 is not reliable, but as a digital device it is highly precise in measuring certain tube types. Perhaps precision is what we seek as buyers (every-time), as the reliability (if known / consistent) is manageable, over or under.

I'm going to go call Amplitrex and collect my fees now :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


It's not about precision and overstatement, it's about Amplitrex AT1000 is using wrong parameters to measure tubes, and there are many of them, yet Amplitrex has never issued any update to correct its many errors that reported by its users. So it's not the most reliable as you had claimed.

Leakage and short test is a basic element to test for testers, almost all testers have the short test and many have leakage test, it's not a specialty from Amplitrex.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 1:36 PM Post #5,959 of 10,003
If I recall correctly, the emission test on Amplitrex AT1000 that measures the ability of tubes to emit electrons is also wrong. The correct method to measure tube emission is to link grids to plates, then treat the tube as a diode and measure the conductivity between cathode and plate/grids. However, Amplitrex AT1000 measures the tube plate current instead and call it emission test, so Amplitrex makes up its own fake emission tests :dt880smile:
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 1:42 PM Post #5,960 of 10,003
Regardlessly, end of the day, the test result from whatever testers can only be used as a reference. Dont take it too seriously that is exact measurement, you are going to make yourself too paranoid to enjoy your music....just my opinion, please dont knock my head:deadhorse:
To me, it is a good sign that sellers are taking responsibility, testing the tubes and to their best knowledge in providing as much info as possible on the tubes they are selling. At least, we know it is not going to be DOA or one of the plates is dead. This is the exact reason I dont buy tubes with no test result but described as tested strong or good. A 10 years old kid can do that too as long as he knows how to use the keyboard.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 2:47 PM Post #5,961 of 10,003
It's not about precision and overstatement, it's about Amplitrex AT1000 is using wrong parameters to measure tubes, and there are many of them, yet Amplitrex has never issued any update to correct its many errors that reported by its users. So it's not the most reliable as you had claimed.

Leakage and short test is a basic element to test for testers, almost all testers have the short test and many have leakage test, it's not a specialty from Amplitrex.

I removed the word "most" from Post #5,953 to brighten your day :sunglasses: 💡

I'm just sharing thoughts...which is why I try and remember to post using words like prefer and perhaps... simply sharing ideas that I hope others might find useful (or not).

At the end of the day, I usually buy from the same ~5 tube sellers globally, of which 2 use AT1000 and the others have varying machines, all of whom are longstanding suppliers to the head-fi community. So, for me, it's a balance between earns-trust and data.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 3:10 PM Post #5,962 of 10,003
I probably wouldn't overthink the tube testing too much, tubes have very long usable life even if they don't measure 100% NOS. For a 6SN7, assuming the sections are reasonably well-matched (they do not need to be perfectly matched), they should work well and not translate to any noticeable channel imbalance. I buy tubes that don't test 100% NOS all the time, because in a real circuit it doesn't matter assuming the voltage gain at the chosen operating point is more or less equal between the two channels.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 4:30 PM Post #5,963 of 10,003
I usually allow up to 10% variance in the sections. More than that and I get wary of the tube. I’ve never been able to hear a testing variance under 10% with my ears of stone.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 5:52 PM Post #5,964 of 10,003
Hello,
While we're on the subject.
How do you read the values and what do the values mean in the tester afterwards?
And when does it become critical where you recognise that they are critical during the sale.
Sometimes I see 70/60, sometimes not much, sometimes less.

A crash course to read up on this would be helpful.
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 6:03 PM Post #5,965 of 10,003
Hello,
While we're on the subject.
How do you read the values and what do the values mean in the tester afterwards?
And when does it become critical where you recognise that they are critical during the sale.
Sometimes I see 70/60, sometimes not much, sometimes less.

A crash course to read up on this would be helpful.
Depends entirely on the tester being used. A crash course would be 40 pages long to cover some of it. :laughing:
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 6:36 PM Post #5,966 of 10,003
Depends entirely on the tester being used. A crash course would be 40 pages long to cover some of it. :laughing:
…and for more than a few sellers a ‘crash course’ on calibration & maintenance of tube testers is sorely needed…😒
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 7:00 PM Post #5,967 of 10,003
…and for more than a few sellers a ‘crash course’ on calibration & maintenance of tube testers is sorely needed…😒
LOL! And a proper RTFM would apply as well, except in many cases there isn't one. :laughing:
 
Feb 22, 2022 at 7:28 PM Post #5,968 of 10,003
Hello,
While we're on the subject.
How do you read the values and what do the values mean in the tester afterwards?
And when does it become critical where you recognise that they are critical during the sale.
Sometimes I see 70/60, sometimes not much, sometimes less.

A crash course to read up on this would be helpful.

Here is a link to an article that goes over the basics of the two most common types of testers, emission and mutual conductance (aka transconductance).

http://www.tungsol.com/html/faqs7.html

Emission testers basically operate the tube as a diode and give a measurement of the emissive capabilities of the cathode, the result is given as a percentage, with 100% being considered NOS. This is the most basic type of tester and gives some idea of remaining tube lifespan. However, it doesn't tell you much about the actual operating conditions of the tube.

A more advanced type of tester is a mutual conductance tester, the likes of a Hickok. These types of testers measure mutual conductance of the tube at a specific operating point. Mutual conductance (gm) is one of the three tube constants, the others being amplification factor (mu), and plate resistance (rp). They are related by the equation mu = gm x rp. The amplification factor (mu) is what is going to affect the practical voltage gain of the tube. If mu for two sections of a tube or two different channels of an amplifier differs significantly, you may hear a channel imbalance. But these testers do not measure mu, they measure gm. By the equation, they are directly proportional assuming rp is constant (it isn't, but close enough to be assumed). So basically you can infer that mu will be at its proper specification if gm is too, that's the idea at least, reality is different but good enough to be practical.

Gm testers will either give a direct value for gm (2600 micromhos for the 6SN7, for instance) OR they will give a value based on a normalized scale created by the tester manufacturer. For example, the Hickok TV-7D/U has its own gm scale and gives a value based on that scale that must be compared to the reference value given in the tester manual.

Okay, so for emission testers, you will see the test result as a percentage. For gm testers, you will see either A) a direct value of gm in micromhos that must be compared to the reference value from the tube datasheet or B) a value based on the normalized scale for that specific tester. For B, the seller will often say what the minimum reference value is for that tester, which is often considered to be 60% of a NOS value. So they might say something like "tested 64 on a calibrated Hickok TV-7D/U with 45 being minimum", or they might just say "tested 64/45 on a calibrated Hickok TV-7D/U". If 45 is the 60% of NOS gm based on the Hickok scale, some simple math would tell you that 64 would be roughly 85% of a NOS gm value.

That's the basic idea. However some sellers will use backslashes when tubes have two different sections, like a 6SN7. They might write it as "2700/2600 with 2600 being NOS" or "66/68 with 45 being minimum" in the case of gm testers with normalized scales, so watch out for that.

One more thing, the units of transconductance. By Ohm's low, Ohm = V/A. The units of the mutual conductance, A/V, are the inverse, the reason it is written as mho (yeah, it's literally just ohm backwards). So a millimho is mA/V, a micromho is μA/V. Transconductance of solid state components is much higher these days, and everything is expressed in Siemens (S) which is equivalent to mhos (A/V).

So, 1S = 1mho = 1 A/V = 1,000 mA/V = 1,000,000 μA/V = 1,000,000 micromhos.

That is the crash course.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2022 at 7:57 PM Post #5,969 of 10,003
.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2022 at 12:10 AM Post #5,970 of 10,003
Hello,
While we're on the subject.
How do you read the values and what do the values mean in the tester afterwards?
And when does it become critical where you recognise that they are critical during the sale.
Sometimes I see 70/60, sometimes not much, sometimes less.

A crash course to read up on this would be helpful.
If u r into tube rolling, it is advisable to start collecting the datasheet of each makes, go here http://www.r-type.org/
and download the pdf files. Then, search for the supplement or data table for each tester like TV-7D/U, etc, they have their own recommended reading...you can find these online, just google.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top