[Marbles]

If you could name one upgrade to perspective Salk speaker owners, what would it be?

In my case, I was extremely impressed with the Cardas Patented binding posts, and for $80 (bi wired) I see no reason not to do it, unless you absolutely can't use bare wire or spades on your speaker wire.

Having the internal and external wire making contact with each other and taking the binding posts out of the signal path is a VERY good thing IMO.

[Bingenito]

Black Hole 5 never hurts  I love the stuff. A quick knock on the cabinet will prove it's worth.

[brj]

Marbles, can you make the type of Patented Cardas Binding Post based wire-to-wire connection you are referring with normal (round) wires, or are flat cables absolutely required?

Thanks!

[Marbles]

I think bare round wires would work, although they would probably get squashed a bit.  If you don't have ribbon cable then putting spades on them might be better.

The binding posts were made with round internal wire in mind and spades on the external.

[StevenACNJ]

"Cardas Patented binding posts, and Having the internal and external wire making contact with each other and taking the binding posts out of the signal path is a VERY good thing IMO."

I was very impressed with this idea. I also really liked the aluminum plate that Jim used for a binding post plate.

I am going to DIY the same type of binding post setup for my 5 HT speakers. I already purchased the Cardas Patened binding posts and with some help from Gordy, am in the process of making up the plates.

One of the best tweaks I have seen in a while.

Hats off to Jim Salk!

[brj]

I think bare round wires would work, although they would probably get squashed a bit.  If you don't have ribbon cable then putting spades on them might be better.

I assumed that you could add spades to round internal and external wires to make the proposed connection topology work, but (having not seen the binding posts in question up close) I'm not sure that adding two spades to the signal path would be any less "detrimental" to the sound than using the traditional connection topology.  Two parts (spade-spade) is two parts (spade-binding post), yes?

[Marbles]

Here's a link to the binding posts.

http://www.diycable.com/main/product_info.php?products_id=228

They show the internal wire being placed inside a tube...in my case this wasn't done.

With the Ridge Street, the spade is made from the wire, so it really is wire to wire connection with nothing in between.

There is no reason that the bare internal wire has to use the tube either.  It can be run directly out the tube hole and bent at a 90* angle.  The connection with bare wire would be a bit trickier though (bare to bare).

Do you use bare wire on your external speaker wires?  If you want to continue that, then IMO get a LOW MASS binding post.  As an example the VMPS ones are high mass.

Eichman sells a low mass one (maybe WBT does too).

[StevenACNJ]

I think bare round wires would work, although they would probably get squashed a bit.  If you don't have ribbon cable then putting spades on them might be better.

I assumed that you could add spades to round internal and external wires to make the proposed connection topology work, but (having not seen the binding posts in question up close) I'm not sure that adding two spades to the signal path would be any less "detrimental" to the sound than using the traditional connection topology.  Two parts (spade-spade) is two parts (spade-binding post), yes?

Here is a link to the Cardas site. You can see how the the binding posts work:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=oem&content_id=10&pagestring=Patented+Binding+Posts

Pair of spades touching each other will be far less mass of metal involved in the signal path. Although the Cardas Patented posts are a lot less metal mass, in comparison to thier standard posts, when looking at traditional installation.

Can get a great quality CCC Vampire spade, cryo treated, from Take Five Audio.

[Robert C. Schult]

"Cardas Patented binding posts, and Having the internal and external wire making contact with each other and taking the binding posts out of the signal path is a VERY good thing IMO."

I was very impressed with this idea.... One of the best tweaks I have seen in a while.

Hats off to Jim Salk!

Call me a whiner or whatever  but we would like to make a correction.

This innovation was developed using the Cardas posts by Ridge Street Audio, not Salk Sound or anyone else. It's an RSAD exclusive used in our Sason Ltd loudspeakers that, I feel, we were kind enough and happy to share with Jim to accommodate Marble's project requests. Marbles had requested it since he was going to be using our wire harness inside the project and this arrangement could be used as naturally intended without compromise. Rob's a great guy, I like him a lot and...it's always been very hard for me to say "no" to him...just something 'bout the dude   !

Certainly hats off to Jim for recognizing the virtues of this arrangement and for being willing to put the extra effort into using this arrangement as an option. Most manufacturers wouldn't.

As a courtesy, we simply would like to be recognized and acknowledged for our unique contribution   .

On ward....

The only other binding post I'm aware of that will (mostly) facilitate this arrangement is the Eichmann Cable Pod only after, like the Cardas, it's modified. For what we're doing, the Cardas post arrangement is still the best when modified appropriately.

One could use the round wire from the more standard wire harnesses found inside loudspeakers but some compromises will be introduced. First, most harnesses use stranded wire. One of the compromises I see here is that now, because of the strands, you will have multiple small contacts. Aside from a few other undesirable issues, this will allow air into the connection where oxidation can form. You will not get a good "gas tight" connection. In some instances where a round solid core is used as the internal harness,  the solid core round conductors won't provide the best "surface area" of contact to the partnering speaker cable. Much of the spade's surface area on the speaker cable gets wasted. It is good that solid core provides a single point contact but the contact's surface is very small...not good for the current demands of dynamic speakers. Also, because of the density of round solid core, assuming an appropriate diameter was used, this will be a source of signal reflections at the speaker cable to speaker connection. Whether stranded or solid core, one could terminate spades onto the wire harness that come out of the speaker but then you've compromised the whole idea and might as well just use binding posts as they were intended.

Not to "plug" our products and services but, aside from the performance of our wire harness in and of itself, the use of our internal wire harness in this arrangement is optimum and eliminates all the above issues and then some which I've not brought up.

[Marbles]

As a courtesy, we simply would like to be recognized and acknowledged for our unique contribution icon_smile.gif . ...

Mea Culpa....

I've always tried to give you credit for that brilliant idea and simply forgot to in this thread....

[Robert C. Schult]

Rob...

 

(in a good plutonic way though !)

[Marbles]

You know you want it!!!!  You want it bad!!!

 

[Robert C. Schult]

Well, no not really. That's kinda sick and...just not right! Here's what I really want but you don't qualify and since you don't, as a team, I doubt we could compete very well:

Midget Tossing Compitition    

*Sigh...*

[JoshK]

The patented binding posts are awesome and pulling the inner wires through to the outside is a great idea!  I've been using speakon's lately but the pat'd bps are what I'd chose if they didn't cost so much.

[lonewolfny42]

Robert C. Schult :

Here's what I really want ....Midget Tossing Compitition .

[/list:u]

OK.....step back......here goes....    [/list:u]

[/list:u]

[Robert C. Schult]

Chris, you kill me sometimes! I'm amazed at some of the stuff you come up with in your responses and this one tops 'em all for me. I'm sitting here laughing my ass off! Good one!

[lonewolfny42]

Chris, you kill me sometimes! I'm amazed at some of the stuff you come up with in your responses and this one tops 'em all for me. I'm sitting here laughing my ass off! Good one!

Thank you Robert.. ...relieves the tension of a long work day...after day...after day.....

[marvda1]

whenever i run across them mentioned it is said that they are the best sounding speaker posts, so why are they not mentioned more?
i bet you are wondering what the hell i am talking about....................

edison price posts.

[lonewolfny42]

whenever i run across them mentioned it is said that they are the best sounding speaker posts, so why are they not mentioned more?
i bet you are wondering what the hell i am talking about....................

edison price posts.

Helps to have an info link....

http://www.eminent-tech.com/musicpost.html[/list:u]

[James Romeyn]

Having the internal and external wire making contact with each other and taking the binding posts out of the signal path is a VERY good thing IMO.

In the late '80's (nineteen, not eighteen) Ric Shultz mentioned to me an amazingly simple idea toward a similar goal (eliminating the binding posts).  

Any old binding posts are installed in the speaker, but nothing ever is soldered to them.  Two holes are drilled through the cabinet, one next to each post.  The internal speaker wires are slipped through these holes with several inches of extra wire protruding.  The holes are sealed internally with hot glue or silicone.  The hole can be externally dressed with a grommet or sleaved spacer.  The wire is stripped & shaped into a U to fit around the post, then tinned.  The speaker cable from the amp is similarly terminated on the speaker side.  The two wires are mechanically joined together at the post, one U over the other, & the post knob is tightened around them.  It works quite well.  

I believe the theoretical ideal would be non-conductive nylon or plastic fasteners instead of metal posts.  This would add no capacitive or reactive quality otherwise potentially introduced by the metal post.  It appears, in both Ric Shultz' idea & the one used by Salk, both get the junction closer together, but don't entirely eliminate the post from the circuit.  The potential for signal alteration is minimized by switching to a non-conductive fastener.  This appears to get closer to the goal of eliminating the post electrically.  

I was slightly puzzled by the "no tools required" text, then reading that soldering was required, in the post description.