Is there a reason to terminate a connection at the binding post vs. the transformer?

[SoaDMTGguy]

See attached schematic.

Audio Research terminates the feedback loop connections at the binding posts. Is there any reason they chose that vs. terminating at the transformer? The area behind the posts is cramped, and terminating the wires at the transformer also reduces overall wire length. I don't want to second guess ARC, I'm sure they have their reasons, but it seems electrically equivalent. Am I missing something?

 

[rayma]

Ideally feedback should be returned from the speaker load (Kelvin sensing).
But from the binding post is as close as they can get.

 

[SoaDMTGguy]

Ahh, I see. Gotcha.

I'm disconnecting the 4 ohm and 16 ohm taps. Since there is no binding post connection, can I jump straight from the transformer to the feedback point for those two?

 

[rayma]

The 0 ohm tap goes to the - feedback resistor and the speaker (-) return.
The 4 ohm tap is grounded internally. It goes to the 4 ohm + speaker terminal (if used).
The 8 ohm tap goes to the 8 ohm + speaker terminal (if used).
The 16 ohm tap goes to the + feedback resistor and the 16 ohm + speaker terminal (if used).

In other words, the schematic wiring must not change, regardless of whether anything external is connected to a particular binding post.
I would tend to preserve the wiring present and add two internal tie points near the speaker terminals, to replace the eliminated binding posts.

 

[SoaDMTGguy]

Thanks, that’s perfect! How would you tie the two wires together if they aren’t connected to the output tap?

 

[rayma]

The mounting bolts near the new speaker terminals could be used to internally mount two isolated terminals per channel,
for the wires that do not connect to either of the two new speaker terminals.
https://www.stewmac.com/electronics...and-terminal-strips/terminal-strips-for-amps/