little idea - stereo jack sockets in passive basses

[ahpook]

i had to replace the jack socket in my jazz bass, so i reasoned that if i used a stereo socket, and wired the shield and ring contacts together i'd get a better grip and contact.

...it's it does - it feels a lot snugger that a mono socket (ahem).


just thought i'd share.

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

I guess that would help if the original socket was one of the flimsy cheapos, but I always put in a standard mono switchcraft if I replace the socket in a passive bass/geetar & they're sturdy enough that the contact doesn't lose its spring.

[Thunderhead]

[quote name='Jean-Luc Pickguard' post='298906' date='Oct 3 2008, 08:45 PM']I guess that would help if the original socket was one of the flimsy cheapos, but I always put in a standard mono switchcraft if I replace the socket in a passive bass/geetar & they're sturdy enough that the contact doesn't lose its spring.[/quote]It's not the contact losing its spring that is the usual problem - it's the inside of the barrel getting corroded and making poor contact, and Switchcrafts can go like this the same as any lower-quality jack. This contact is not sprung at all (unless you're using something like a Planet Waves cable) so it is inherently a pure 'touch' contact and prone to making a poor connection.

ahpook is correct that using a stereo jack is better, exactly because it provides a positively sprung ground contact.

In fact, it's [i]always[/i] good practice to use any unused connections or poles to duplicate the ones you need, in any application. It always increases reliability with no downside. It's not necessarily a reason to use a more expensive part in every case, but if you have done it makes no sense to not connect the other contacts as well - and yet you very often see things like double-pole switches with only one half used.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Thunderhead