NYTC transformers
« on: October 04, 2020, 05:25:31 PM »
Can't find any information on them. Are they any good? Found some input transformers for a decent price 600:50k and they're the closest I can find to what I'm in need of.


rackmonkey

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2020, 12:14:56 AM »
NYTC = New York Transformer Co.
NYT = Nytronics

Both of the above show up occasionally in pro audio equipment, but I’ve never found any catalogs or data sheets for either one. Some of the units I’ve ended up with tested well, but others were obviously made for communications or similar use that only requires the middle of the audio spectrum.

So it’s a crapshoot.
Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're probably right.

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2020, 09:43:40 AM »
NYTC = New York Transformer Co.
NYT = Nytronics

Both of the above show up occasionally in pro audio equipment, but I’ve never found any catalogs or data sheets for either one. Some of the units I’ve ended up with tested well, but others were obviously made for communications or similar use that only requires the middle of the audio spectrum.

So it’s a crapshoot.

Thank you for the info this is exactly what I'm afraid of.

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2020, 12:22:38 AM »
Seller insists they sound great and that the primary and secondary imply full spectrum. The only thing that makes me worry is the 300cps-2700cps text. Seems to imply that this transformer is for speech, but maybe that's some weird reason for why their is a CT. I don't know much about transformers outside of datasheets.

abbey road d enfer

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2020, 07:02:20 AM »
Seller insists they sound great and that the primary and secondary imply full spectrum. The only thing that makes me worry is the 300cps-2700cps text. Seems to imply that this transformer is for speech, but maybe that's some weird reason for why their is a CT. I don't know much about transformers outside of datasheets.
CT indicates they are for POTS applications, so yes, expect rather limited frequency response. CT allowed creating a third phantom line from 4 wires.
Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.
Star ground is for electricians.

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2020, 11:01:35 AM »
CT indicates they are for POTS applications, so yes, expect rather limited frequency response. CT allowed creating a third phantom line from 4 wires.

Thank you for clarifying. I almost bought into "I picked them over UTC in tube preamp applications"....

rackmonkey

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2020, 11:33:29 AM »
Seller insists they sound great and that the primary and secondary imply full spectrum.

That makes zero sense. There’s nothing about “the primary and secondary”  that you can tell from outside the can (I assume the seller is talking about nominal impedance) that implies anything about bandwidth. Telephone applications used 600 ohm lines and had tube grids involved, as did intercom systems and other speech applications. So “600:50,000” is worthless as a clue to frequency response.

The only thing that makes me worry is the 300cps-2700cps text.

That tells you all you need to know. 300Hz - 2.7kHz. Speech units.

Caveat: Occasionally, military transformers (indicated by the TF... identifier at the top of the printed text) will have wider bandwidth than specified on the can. The bandwidth the military requires for the application will be printed on the can, per the rules for mil suppliers. As long as the transformer meets or exceeds those specs, it’ll fly. Check any UTC or Chicago catalog, and you’ll see statements to the effect that mil-spec units listed actually exceed their specified bandwidth. But this is by no means the rule. It may be that these fall into that category. But you’re taking a risk. Maybe ask the seller if he/she will take a return if the transformers don’t pass your bandwidth tests.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2020, 11:42:02 AM by rackmonkey »
Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're probably right.

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2020, 12:06:06 PM »
That makes zero sense. There’s nothing about “the primary and secondary”  that you can tell from outside the can (I assume the seller is talking about nominal impedance) that implies anything about bandwidth. Telephone applications used 600 ohm lines and had tube grids involved, as did intercom systems and other speech applications. So “600:50,000” is worthless as a clue to frequency response.

That tells you all you need to know. 300Hz - 2.7kHz. Speech units.

Caveat: Occasionally, military transformers (indicated by the TF... identifier at the top of the printed text) will have wider bandwidth than specified on the can. The bandwidth the military requires for the application will be printed on the can, per the rules for mil suppliers. As long as the transformer meets or exceeds those specs, it’ll fly. Check any UTC or Chicago catalog, and you’ll see statements to the effect that mil-spec units listed actually exceed their specified bandwidth. But this is by no means the rule. It may be that these fall into that category. But you’re taking a risk. Maybe ask the seller if he/she will take a return if the transformers don’t pass your bandwidth tests.

Yeah they're supposed to be mil spec so there is a chance they workout but the slim chance I have to return them isn't really worth the trouble as it's an International purchase.

Thanks for the help. Ill eventually find what I'm looking for.

rackmonkey

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2020, 01:26:14 PM »
If you can give more detail on your project and what you’re looking for, I might have some input transformers for you. I have so many I’ll never use them all and was about to start thinning the herd.
Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're probably right.

EmRR

Re: NYTC transformers
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2020, 01:28:46 PM »
Anything with a minimum spec like that needs a measurement plot to confirm full range claims.   It's very easy for the ear to tell you something like that sounds great and full range in a vacuum.   Remember 200-3K response was considered full range, and all you needed......90 years ago......
Best,

Doug Williams
Electromagnetic Radiation Recorders

"I think this can be better. Some kind of control that's intuitive, not complicated like a single knob" - Crusty

"Back when everything sounde


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
48 Replies
31247 Views
Last post September 02, 2020, 03:35:12 PM
by merlin
6 Replies
2475 Views
Last post May 24, 2009, 02:48:38 AM
by PRR
0 Replies
1828 Views
Last post September 21, 2012, 04:54:25 PM
by jetboatguy
29 Replies
21068 Views
Last post September 10, 2020, 03:06:36 PM
by gnomefather