Tubes: 5687 / 7119 / E182CC How to Test Them?

thank you all for trying,

I have the original, supplement, substitution and European equivalent booklets; the Jackson original is a roll. My friend is a good researcher, he would have found any supplements for it.

nothing lists any of the substitutes that have popped up.

This just came up, says 7044 is an equivalent also.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/306704461123?mkrid=711-175623-139228-7&mkscid=102&adsetid=9e759d84-03f7-4f9f-b253-735e8ca03382&keyword=nonbrand&norover=1&displaytype=simple

/////////////////////////////////////

VIVATUBES.com says there are MANY equivalents

Compatible equivalents & substitutes: 5687, 5687WA, 5687WB, 5687WC, 6900, 7119, 7044, E182CC, CV2578.

/////////////////////////////////////

audioasylum.com; tubes asylum comments

Re: 5687 substitute recommendations

212.42.175.73

• Posted by Peter Qvortrup on June 14, 2005 at 06:58:44

  In Reply to: 5687 substitute recommendations posted by Srajan Ebaen (R) on June 12, 2005 at 15:21:12:

   

Dear Srajan,

The 5687 was designed in 1948/49 by Tungsol (I have 4 of the original factory test samples with dates!), the very early versions are by far the best sounding but extremely hard to find in good working order, otherwise the equivalents are,

7044, too bright and forward for my liking, although good in other applications, as driver or second stage line stage in transformer coupled circuits for example.

E182CC, best versions by Philips in Holland and Telefunken (off course), the Mullard UK was normally the US-made 7119 rebranded. The French RTF is a Philips tooled version, but sounds slightly less pure. The E182CC is my favourite sounding equivalent.

7119, the Amperex is the same as the E182CC Philips Holland above and sometimes cheaper as a result.

6900, I know this is a popular tube with many, but I have to say I find it quite poor sounding, heavy and bright at the same time.

All brands of 5687, my favourites are the Tungsol and Raytheon, but the five star GE and Japanese Toshiba is not bad either, generally the 5687 is slight dark in character, exemplified by the Philips/ECG version which is very common.

Hope this is of use.

Sincerely,
Peter Qvortrup

Some of your info is wrong. 5687 is different from 7119, so not all of your suppositions can be correct. I will check it out when I roll out of bed.

By the way, the final authority is a tube data manual, not Qvortrop. RCA or other.

The fog of sleep is lifting.

5687 = 6900

6922 = 6DJ8 = 7044 = many more (once I look in my RCA Tube Manual, I could find more; this is from memory)

7119 = E182CC

But none of these three types that I have separated by line spacing is equal to any of the others.  What they do have in common is very high transconductance (but different as indicated by line spaciing) and the fact that they all can be plugged into the same tube socket (because their pinouts are the same).  To ascribe a SQ to these tubes without regard to the circuit and to suggest that you can compare 5687 to 7119 (for one example) without regard to the circuit, is folly at best. 

Hi , random thought. I have a pre that uses 8 - 6H30’s and a tester that does not accommodate this tube. I live in a fairly large city but lack a Stereo club. However most large cities have a Short Wave/ Ham Radio group and those old codgers have a lot of tube gear, and testing equipment. Just a random thought from my scattered brain. Regards , Mike B.