Broke speaker jack inside amp...

Cirrus

So last night I decided to move one of my 2x12 cabs across the room, forgetting that it was actually connected to the amp sitting next to it on a different 2x12.

Clearly, I'm stupid.

The jack plate on the cab is cracked, that's no big deal, but when I pulled the the speaker cable out of the amp, it left the tip behind. The speaker jack sockets on the amp are the enclosed back plastic kind, so does anyone have any bright ideas for getting it out of there? The only one I've thought of so far is putting a dab of superglue on something long and thin, leaving it in there to dry then (hopefully) pulling the tip out with that. But since I've already established my own stupidity maybe someone else has a better idea.

Although I can just use the other speaker output for the time being, my concern is that if I leave it in for too long it might shift a bit and bridge the tip+ring terminals in the socket.

If need be I'll take the socket out, but it'd be nice to avoid that since the impedance switch, two sockets and OT secondaries are all bunched pretty tightly there.

ICBM

DO NOT try superglue! You'll make a mess of the inside of the jack.

If the tip has broken off and is still aligned straight, you can sometimes get a small twist drill bit to bite in the hole in the middle of it. If it's not, you can sometimes get them to fall out with a great amount of patience if you support the amp so the jack is pointing vertically downwards, and work underneath using a long thin tool of some sort to wiggle it around until it falls out. (Usually into your eye!)

Failing that, you'll need to get at it from the inside. Don't be tempted to try and force it in any way, if you bend the jack contacts it will then make a bad connection with the new plug and in the worst case you could end up with an open circuit which is a major risk to the OT.

By the way, proper Neutrik plugs don't have this problem because the tip is a single piece with the centre pin that runs right through the sleeve.

martinw

I've never managed to do this from outside the amp.

ICBM

martinw said:

I've never managed to do this from outside the amp.

I have many times, but I'm not convinced that the time saved doing it in the about 1/4 or less of the cases it can be done outweighs the time wasted when you have to give up and take the amp apart anyway! Sometimes when it 'magically' comes out within a minute makes it seem worthwhile, but you can just as easily spend ten before giving up...

martinw

Yes, it's one of those 'quick way of doing this' jobs!

Cirrus

Cheers, I'll try a drill bit before practice this eve. I'm pretty sure it's in the correct orientation for a docking manoeuvre.

Van_Hayden

martinw;52168" said:

I've never managed to do this from outside the amp.

Me neither, but it's worth a go. First time I made the same mistake was lifting up a Marshall 9200 in a rack, heavy sucker that. It took hours to strip it down and get the bugger out....

viz

Last time I did that the jack came half out and bent into 90 degrees. Neutrik too. But the built-like-a-lancaster Carvin amp was ok

bertie

is it fixed ?  come on  let us know

martinw

viz said:

But the built-like-a-lancaster Carvin amp was ok

Actually the Lanc, like most WWII combat aircraft, was pretty lightweight in its construction. It had a short intended service life (6 months was a long time to survive ops back then) and they had little knowledge of metal fatigue in aluminium alloys in those days. For obvious reasons, if an aircraft disappeared on a flight, they rarely knew if it was an engineering problem or enemy action.

My mum worked at A. V. Roe's in Chadderton during the war; the stories she told were eye opening.

ICBM

martinw said:

Actually the Lanc, like most WWII combat aircraft, was pretty lightweight in its construction. It had a short intended service life (6 months was a long time to survive ops back then) and they had little knowledge of metal fatigue in aluminium alloys in those days. For obvious reasons, if an aircraft disappeared on a flight, they rarely knew if it was an engineering problem or enemy action.

My mum worked at A. V. Roe's in Chadderton during the war; the stories she told were eye opening.

The Lancaster was actually quite fragile - the really tough one of the big British bombers was the Short Stirling, which was a much cruder and stronger plane. It was bigger than the Lanc but carried a smaller load, was slower and couldn't fly as high or far, but could take a huge amount of damage and stay flying.

Cirrus

bertie;52793" said:

is it fixed ?  come on  let us know

Not yet - I didn't have time to do much other than look inside and poke it with a screwdriver to make sure it wasn't going to shift about during practice.

I know it's traitorous but the B-17 is always going to be the best war bomber in my book. It just looks mean, even when it's sitting on the ground it looks like it's ready for business.

viz

Sorry for the typo guys, I was trying to say my amp was build like Lancaster, the city.

ESBlonde

ICBM said:

martinw said:

Actually the Lanc, like most WWII combat aircraft, was pretty lightweight in its construction. It had a short intended service life (6 months was a long time to survive ops back then) and they had little knowledge of metal fatigue in aluminium alloys in those days. For obvious reasons, if an aircraft disappeared on a flight, they rarely knew if it was an engineering problem or enemy action.

My mum worked at A. V. Roe's in Chadderton during the war; the stories she told were eye opening.

The Lancaster was actually quite fragile - the really tough one of the big British bombers was the Short Stirling, which was a much cruder and stronger plane. It was bigger than the Lanc but carried a smaller load, was slower and couldn't fly as high or far, but could take a huge amount of damage and stay flying.

The Stirlings major fault was the design spec that insisted the wingspan was under 100 ft to fit the then standard (prewar) hanger door. This meant it had to be thick to achieve lift which meant it was slow and incapable of high altitude (Stirlings took the brunt of AA fire before being withdrawn). That thick wing did give it strength though. The Wellington took the prize for taking punishment (Barnes Wallis again). The lancaster was built with a life expectancy of just 44 flying hours! Take out delivery and test flights and that's about 5 operations on average.

@Cirrus The Fortress was easy to fly and relatively comfortable for the crew (only relatively) which is why it was so popular, however it still needed a co pilot and an engineer. The lanc needed no co pilot and could be thrown about like a small aircraft. The Liberator carried a greater bomb load faster than the fort but could not hold tight formation at altitude. Typical B17 bomb load was 4000Lbs, Typical Lanc was 12,000 Lbs, also a lanc only needed 7 crew and a fort needed 10.

Cirrus

Got the Bastard! With help from gravity, a long screw, and 10 minutes lying under my baby grunting and trying to get as deep in the hole as I could.
>:D<

Cirrus

And just for fun, I took this at Duxford air show the other weekend;

Misterg

Cirrus said:

And just for fun, I took this at Duxford air show the other weekend;

How far did you get with it?

viz

Lol awarded.

Cirrus

Lol!

Dresden.