• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

JVC QL-Y5F Turntable electro-dynamic servo tonearm?

zeplin43

zeplin43

Well-Known Member
Another one i caught floating around for sale and i pulled the trigger.sorry guys but ive been hit by the TT fever (3)

What do you guys think of this TT

jvcqlf51.jpg


jvcqly5f2.jpg


How will the JVC QL-Y5F stand up to the Denon DP 57L - Kenwood KD 990 - JVC QL F6
They all have a sme type headshell that i like easy to change Headshell and carts.I do have a straight tonearm for the Denon DP 57L

Any tips on how to Set Up and operate this electro-dynamic servo tonearm
 
Register to hide this ad
Hello zeplin43,
About three weeks ago, I got one of these turntables. I have been very pleased with it so far. The automatic function is quite nice.
My other turntable is a Technics SL-1200Mk2 with KAB rewired tonearm and damper. But I have not done a direct comparison of the two tables for sound quality, using the same cartridge A-to-B.
I am looking forward to seeing comments from others!
Best regards, DM
 
This is my other table and I think it's great. Speed is dead on always. The auto functions are convenient.

I used this up until a few days ago when I switched to my SL-1200.

I haven't done a side by side either, but both have their strengths. Different carts on each too, so the JVC set up is a little quieter.

I think it retailed for around 500 in early 80s so the equivalent these days would be around 1500. Quality table, in other words.
 
Where are you finding these tables, ebay Europe................ I know there is no ebay Europe per say but I wrote it that way to encompass the major European countries...........
 
I imported mine via fleabay UK...

Technically a nice table - the servo arm works as advertised!

Weakness is that the plinth tends to act like a reverberation chamber especially the bottom plywood cover.

Concensus is to fill the body with as much plasticine as will fit in whatever corners you can find.
This does two things:

1) Add mass
2) Plasticine damps vibrations between 300 and 3000Hz very effectively

Another trick is to place some weights on top of the plinth - reduces more of the resonance

The bottom base can be damped with spray on damping compounds, some people have had good results with a fifth foot placed in the middle.
I put pasticine inside toilet roll holders(cardboard tubes) so that it is wedged and constrained between the top and bottom plates of the plinth - providing a sort of constrained layer effect and helping to damp vibrations from both sides.

Look for the postings on this beasty - concensus is that with a little time (and very little money) these can be made to compete very successfully with new TT's of circa $2000.

Another place with lots of contributors of the JVC persuasion is AudioCircles

bye for now

David
 
Thks guys for all the replies.Well google has been my friend.
I had read some inf on filling the body with plasticine and the 5th foot, seems i will have to give this a try.
 
JVC made some very good tables in the early 80s.
Between 80-83, the Japanese came out with some of their best units, taking a sophisticated, technological approach. By 1985 it was all downhill, as the BCP syndrome creeped in.

I'm a huge fan of servo arms. When designed right, they do a wonderful job.

You've got a great table there. Congrats!

I've got a couple of JVC ED Servo Arm tables. A QL-Y55F, and QL-Y66F.

About the only downside with the JVC is that rather resonant plinth. lining it with dyna-mat helps, also try removing the bottom, it prevents sound waves from being trapped in the hollow plinth.

JVC and Denon servo arms have no gears or mechanical linkage, the damping and automatic functions are purely electro-magnetic. Arm/plinth contact is no different than with a standard arm.
 
Very nice turntable. Very similar in performance to the Denon DP-57L, apart from the fact it lacks the ability to plug in different types of arm wands, like the Denon’s option of a lightweight straight arm, but they spent less time on plinth and platter resonance compared with the Denon. JVC used the plug in arm wand feature in some of their later turntables, like the QL-Y55F and QL-Y66F – the advantage of that approach is that the extra weight for the detachable wand is near the pivot, so adds less to the effective mass of the tonearm than a detachable headshell. It’s a slightly later version of the JVC QL-F6, with superior electronic damping of the tonearm, compared with the oil damping used on the QL-F6 tonearm. It cost AUD$639 in 1981 – the QL-F6 which it superseded cost $629, and the equivalent Technics SL-1300MkII cost $669 – the SL-1200MkII was $419.

The active tonearm is very similar to the Denon, and was JVC’s first attempt at a copy of the Sony Biotracer tonearm – like the Sony and Denon active arms it works better than non-active tonearms, and as a bonus automates the tonearm with nothing touching it. Denon took a few years longer than JVC and Sony to come out with their versions. There is a slightly simpler version of the QL-Y5F with the active damping only on the horizontal section of the tonearm – that is the JVC QL-Y3F, one of which I own – I also have a Sony PS-X600, which has the last version of the Sony biotracer tonearm, and was the last of the great Sony turntables.

Here’s the effect of the active damping on the QL-Y5F – you can see how damped the low frequency arm/cartridge resonance is (just 3dB), which lowers IM distortion considerably.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
about the only drawback I found to the table in my set up was that it seemed "clunky" for lack of better description. It takes up a lot of room--it's a big one. I like my SL-1200 better because it seems to have more "turntable-ness." I know that doesn't make sense probably except to me.

Also there's something I dislike about too much automation. I like getting closer to the LP with fully manual tables.
 
I drive one, and it's very good with highly detailed cartridges :)

That arm can easily support cartridges up to about $2K in todays dollars.
 
Hello zeplin43,
I am posting photos of my turntable. I'm embarrassed that the photos are not so good; I will have to work on better ones in the future! Anyway, I have a quick question for you...
I am wondering if my turntable is missing a screw at the back side of the base of the tonearm. I have included a photo of the empty threaded hole. Can you tell me if your table has a screw there?
Thanks!
DM
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0058.jpg
    DSC_0058.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 219
  • DSC_0056.jpg
    DSC_0056.jpg
    35.4 KB · Views: 230
gmku said:
about the only drawback I found to the table in my set up was that it seemed "clunky" for lack of better description. It takes up a lot of room--it's a big one. I like my SL-1200 better because it seems to have more "turntable-ness." I know that doesn't make sense probably except to me.

Also there's something I dislike about too much automation. I like getting closer to the LP with fully manual tables.
Click to expand...

You can operate these tables in manual mode as well, you can start and stop the platter, and move the arm by hand if you want to. There's no actual mechanical linkage to interfere, and the electronic damping is always on.

On the Y55F and Y66F, you can adjust the amount of damping. On the Denon DP-47, you have no control over the damping.

I've got a Denon DP-47, I don't find the plinth or motor any better than the JVC, in fact I find it built "cheaper". I'd argue the JVC QL-Y66F is a better design, it has a larger platter, and a magnetic bearing.

I've got a 1200mkII as well, it has an RB250 arm. A great manual deck for sure, however I still prefer the JVC.
Although I'd have to admit the SL-1200's plinth does a far better job at isolation. The problem with both the JVC and Denon plinths is that they are huge, hollow boxes. They resonate like a speaker cabinet and require tweaks to tame them. Removing the bottom of the QL-Y55F really helped. (No standing waves bouncing around)

In fact, I gave up my tricked out Rega P5 because it offered nothing over the JVCs or Denon, yet cost more than 3 times the price.
 
Last edited:
True, all. Between my 1200 and my JVC, I'm not sure which I "prefer" because each has its merits. I've enjoyed switching out to the Technics right now. I'd like to swap back out with the JVC in a few months and see if I can appreciate the sonic differences.
 
Another interesting tweak for these...

the thread on the counterweight appears to be the same as that on technics arms...

This means that when you have a lighter or heavier cartridge you can actually vary the counterweight quite easily (I now have 4 different CW's...)

Also if you need to lighten the arm (for high compliance cartridges) - use the heaviest CW that will balance the arm. Counterintuitive - but a heavier mass closer in has lower inertia, than a lighter mass further out.

I was also unable to balance an original ultra light ortofon concorde until I got the lightweight CW's.
 
dlaloum said:
Another interesting tweak for these...

the thread on the counterweight appears to be the same as that on technics arms...

This means that when you have a lighter or heavier cartridge you can actually vary the counterweight quite easily (I now have 4 different CW's...)

Also if you need to lighten the arm (for high compliance cartridges) - use the heaviest CW that will balance the arm. Counterintuitive - but a heavier mass closer in has lower inertia, than a lighter mass further out.

I was also unable to balance an original ultra light ortofon concorde until I got the lightweight CW's.
Click to expand...

So the closer the counterweight to the tonearm spindle the better?
Ive been tying to keep CW close to the middle.


Thks for all the help thats why i like this forum!
 
Yours looks very similiar to my QL-Y3F. Yes, it's got a HUGE footprint, so i simply took the dustcover off. I play my lp's 99.9% of the time with the dust cover lifted anyways. Currently running a Grado Gold1 and very pleased with it. No complains other than the auto-cue function getting a bit dicey. A quick Jerry-rig fix seems to be doing the trick (for now...)
Another fine early 80's Japanese build TT. You are getting quite a collection going, friend! :thmbsp:
 
gmku said:
True, all. Between my 1200 and my JVC, I'm not sure which I "prefer" because each has its merits. I've enjoyed switching out to the Technics right now. I'd like to swap back out with the JVC in a few months and see if I can appreciate the sonic differences.
Click to expand...

dlaloum said:
Another interesting tweak for these...

the thread on the counterweight appears to be the same as that on technics arms...

gmku,
any chance you can check if your JVC & 1200 counterweights do indeed have the same thread? I would MUCH appreciate it. Just purchased a (beautiful to me) JVC QL-Y3F minus the counterweight. None available for purchase anywhere online! (Or at least not that I can find.) However, after numerous visual comparisons of pictures available online (and examination of manuals at Vinyl Engine), I think (hope) the QL-Y3F & QL-Y5F have the SAME counterweights. So, if your 1200 & QL-Y5F counterweights are interchangeable (regardless of whether they are the same weight or not), then obviously I could buy a 1200 counterweight online for my QL-Y3F. Thanks!
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • JVC QL-Y3F.jpg
    JVC QL-Y3F.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 102
  • JVC QL-Y3F(2).jpg
    JVC QL-Y3F(2).jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 112
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom