HPM-100 and binding posts

[devoid]

I'm considering changing the terminals on my HPM-100s to binding posts. Looking for some experiences doing so here, if I can be pointed to existing threads. Anyhow, I was also wondering if it's really worth it. Some of them rotate, that seems to be just a loose screw. The cabinets aren't the best so I don't have much of a concern about keeping them original.

Mostly from the performance aspect. Would binding posts be a realistic improvement over the spring loaded ones? Is there a specific cable end that maintains a good connection with the spring post? Seems bare wire would have less of a contact area over time without a definite clamping pressure of a screw. Maybe #12 solid copper in the original posts?

The cables I made are overkill, four #11 conductors, and of coarse are heavy, and that plays into this too. More I think about this I'm leaning towards the binding posts, terminating my cables with the solid #12 or so copper, loop that around the posts and torque down. Should be a solid, large surface area and long lasting connection.

So maybe I could somehow do the same with the original posts? Suggestions?

 

[avguytx]

I like to change the stock terminals on those speakers that have those "chincy" little spring loaded kind or those twist down crap terminals like the Advents, AR's, etc have. I too use larger wire that's definitely bigger than the lamp cord in those days. My Esoteric Audio cables that I use in the living room are about the equivalent of 10ga wire so I definitely have to have terminals that can take a 'naner, spade lug or large pin as the tips of my cables are interchangeable. Some speakers already have the 5-way binding post style and sometimes I leave them stock. Depends on how much they make it into rotation.

I've never swapped them on HPM-100's so I can't comment on the hard/easy factor of the job. Sonic improvements are next to nothing (with my ears)...it's mainly for ease of using better wires and swapping things around.

 

[SoCal Sam]

IMO, the HPM-100 will not benefit greatly from changing binding posts or using solid copper wires. You would also have to change the internal wiring to remove the bottleneck. But more importantly, the HPM-100 is so hot and bright, your tweaks will have little effect.

 

[Tripqzon]

I use 12 gauge wire on my HPM-100's with pin terminations on the ends of the speaker wire. I really see no need to go any larger than that unless you're pushing concert level watts through them.

If you really want to put binding posts I don't believe it would be that difficult on these crossovers. I just don't know which ones you should put as I haven't done it. Parts Express or MCM, both are AK sponsors, may have just what you're looking for.

Good luck and post pics if you do it. I would be interested in seeing the end result. Oh, and post pics of the crossover board as well before and after the posts are installed.

 

[devoid]

What I'm really looking for here is a reliable low resistance connection between the wire and post. I tinned the wire, #12 actually, for insertion into the post. Wire is West Penn 248. S'pose I should break out the Fluke 189 and I could see how this compares to a binding post.

 

[moinau]

Hi,
I did this with my AR-91, there was no sonic benefit at all, sorry to say, and personally it was a big mistake. I have a pair of HPM-100 (crossover version B) and I use wire's gauge #14. It makes a good and tight connection.
Regards

 

[devoid]

I think I'm just going to tighten down the posts that are loose. If anything that's where I'd be having a problem. I do want to check out that one electrolytic capacitor. It's probably shot by now.

 

[MaxSeven]

Perhaps you should do something like this, which I did for my JBL's -- all from partsexpress...

 

[needforspeed]

When the crossovers were recapped I switched to some from PartsExpress, As the springs in the old ones were shot. They are much more durable, Can be used with bare wire or about any connection out there. This is a pic of a HPM-60 test, You get the idea.