Speaker Terminals and Binding Posts solution?
Apr 1, 2022 10:07:02 GMT
via mobile
firebottle likes this
Post by optical on Apr 1, 2022 10:07:02 GMT
I'm still trying to think why low mass would be better on a copper speaker connection? One wants good current handling which I would think would mean higher mass. If brass instead of copper, I could see mass being an issue in signal transmission, but....
Hi Bruce,
as the build and upgrades were progressing I just stuck with pure copper (but higher mass) posts (CMC). The ones referenced would have to come from the USA and would require a little modification to fit on the plate of the 686. Probably could be done but I just went with the easier option.
You're probably correct in your evaluation that with pure copper the effect of slightly more mass is negligible, I certainly don't feel I'm missing anything with them.
Having said that I'd still be open to trying them one day, I think the current point wouldn't come in to play until you get a lot smaller mass than even the aforementioned low mass ones, as it's surprising what can flow through very thin gauge stuff, but obviously you don't even want to be near the limitations in my opinion.
I think Bigman80 has tried some lower mass WBT offerings on his 686 so he can probably give you some useful info, from memory be finds the upturn in detail very satisfying however it may not be to everyone's tastes.
We might be splitting hairs here of course but the more resolving a system the more of these changes you tend to hear, whether you like them or not is more subjective and a personal preference.
