RX-V 1600 or 2600?

[MrPirate2882]

What's the difference between the two and is it wise to spend $1300 now when technology changes so fast. Is the 2600 worth the extra $300.00? With the future advancements of HDMI, will the 2600 be insufficient in a few years?

 

[thevinoman]

I'm wondering the same thing

Thanks for posting this question, as I'm on the fence about which one to purchase as well.

 

[Doug917]

MrPirate2882,

Any receiver you buy, regardless of who makes it, will be obsolete as far as up to date surround formats and features within a few years. If HDMI is not important to you or you could do external switching, I would recommend picking up the 2500. It is half the price of the 2600 and several hundred dollars less than the 1600. To put this into perspective, my 2500 is less than a year old and I bought it the first week it came out and it is already outdated. The 2600 would also be lucky to see a year old before Yamaha starts selling its replacement. The important thing for me is the 2600 doesn't put enough new technology on the plate for me to upgrade. Does it add enough for you to double the price of a 2500?

 

[GlocksRock]

The only main difference between the two that I know of is 10 watts per channel extra and video upscaling on the 2600.

 

[jcPanny]

Hdmi

Your concerns about changes in HDMI are valid. The new receivers support HDMI 1.1 and version 1.2 is already out. Consider purchasing the older RX-V2500 for about half the cost of the new model. It only switches component video, so you can connect a single HDMI device directly to the display and add an external HDMI switch box later for about $300.