Yamaha 2600 v 4600

[gcmarshall]

I have read the Yam 4600 review and have done my best to scrounge details from Yamaha's web site for differences between the 2600 and 4600. According to the review contained on this web site, the main differences between the 4600 and 2500 (the version the 2600 replaces) are:

1) HDMI video switching (Ver 1.1)
2) Active i.LINK
3) HD Radio
4) More robust amplifier section (see measurements and analysis section)
5) Dedicated multi-zone remote control
6) THX Select2 certification and processing

From what I can tell, the 2600 has items 1, 5, and 6 above, thus improving over the 2500 model. Plus the 2600 has HDMI upconversion and XM-readiness. The 4600 does not have the HDMI upconversion feature, nor XM-readiness. Thus, can someone shed some light on why one might choose the 4600 over the 2600 given that the 4600 is $500 more expensive for virtually the same machine? Are items 2, 3, and 4 above (that exist on the 4600, but are absent from the 2600, as far as I can tell) worth about $500 more even without the HDMI upconversion feature? Is item #4 enough of an improvement for the average listener to tell a difference in movie or music modes? It seems a little askew to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Dezoris]

I have read the Yam 4600 review and have done my best to scrounge details from Yamaha's web site for differences between the 2600 and 4600. According to the review contained on this web site, the main differences between the 4600 and 2500 (the version the 2600 replaces) are:

1) HDMI video switching (Ver 1.1)
2) Active i.LINK
3) HD Radio
4) More robust amplifier section (see measurements and analysis section)
5) Dedicated multi-zone remote control
6) THX Select2 certification and processing

From what I can tell, the 2600 has items 1, 5, and 6 above, thus improving over the 2500 model. Plus the 2600 has HDMI upconversion and XM-readiness. The 4600 does not have the HDMI upconversion feature, nor XM-readiness. Thus, can someone shed some light on why one might choose the 4600 over the 2600 given that the 4600 is $500 more expensive for virtually the same machine? Are items 2, 3, and 4 above (that exist on the 4600, but are absent from the 2600, as far as I can tell) worth about $500 more even without the HDMI upconversion feature? Is item #4 enough of an improvement for the average listener to tell a difference in movie or music modes? It seems a little askew to me. Am I missing something?

I was going to return my 2500 for a 2600, however. The 2600 has absolutely nothing more to offer in the audio department, aside from THX2.

You are paying for the HDMI features and built in de-interlacer which is not all that hot.

The 4600 has better amps, and power supply compared to the 2500/2600 thats according to audioholics review.

 

[Phantomguy]

You are paying for the HDMI features and built in de-interlacer which is not all that

Ahaa. Someone finally who has an (educated) opinion on the video "upconversion" of the 2600/1600. So many threads on the audio features but I have seen nothing else (other than your post) on these video functions. So why do you say "not so hot"? Have you some technical or anecdotal evidence? Hey Gene or Dan and other regulars --- what say you about the new Yammies' capability here? As to deinterlacing (PAL 1080i and 576i where I presently live not just NTSC 480i), reverse 3:2 pulldown, transcoding (any intermediate line interploation), and upscaling? Do they output HDMI as only progressive? Can these units output future 1080p? etc etc. My imminent purchase awaits a thorough investigation/review on the video side of things (to overcome the hopeless upconversion/rescaling functions of my new and disappointing BenQ PE8700 HD2+ projector). Phantomguy

 

[jcPanny]

Do you need features 2, 3, and 4?

The answers depends on the rest of the components in your setup:
2) Do you have a SACD player that can utilize the iLink connection? Version 1.2 of HDMI will allow the SACD signal over the HDMI cable.

3) Do you have any HD-Radio stations in your area? I have XM-Radio in both cars and at home and love it. In my part of Nor Cal there aren't any stations broadcasting in HD-Radio.

4) What is the impedence and efficency of your speakers? Size of room? Max volume levels. If you want to drive inefficient 4 ohm speakers on all channels to insane levels, then you will need a dedicated amp anyway, so the difference between the 4600 and 2600 amp section is irrelevant.

Personally, I think the HDMI features of the newest models are overated, especially when you can buy the 2500 model for about half the price. HDMI is an evolving standard. Version 1.2 is already out and newer versions will be required to transmit Dolby-HD and other standards used by future HD players. The upconversion/scalling feature is only valuable is it is better than that of your HDTV or your upconversion DVD player.

 

[whyme]

Either one you buy will need an external amp if you want too get the most out off it. Both will make excellent pre/pro's, on the power side the 4600 sucks.

 

[gcmarshall]

i find it hard to believe that i would need an additional AMP to enjoy a $1700 yamaha receiver for basic music listening and 5.1 movie watching on very mid-range speakers in a small room. yamaha designed this product to perform by itself if one desires. an additional amp sounds like a real waste of money for most purposes for people like myself who don't need to get every last ounce of power or detail out of my audio. and, if yamaha's 3rd most expensive receiver "sucks" in the power department, then i give up.

 

[jaxvon]

GC, I think you'd be fine with normal speakers in a small room. The only reason I could see needing an external amp would be for use with particularly challenging loads like Magnepan speakers, or if you were driving 5 Polk towers in a large room. Since you are not doing any of these, the 4600 should give you plenty of power.

 

[gcmarshall]

JAXVON-thanks. i've been using a mass-market sony receiver for 10+ years that recently died. that's why i've been in the market again recently. my belief is that if i have been content with that sony for so long (and with only 2 mains and a center speaker in 3 channel mode), then anything along the lines of a higher range yamaha with a full 5.1 set up is going to be more than sufficient for my needs. thanks for weighing in, as i believe your post is very accurate for my needs.

 

[jaxvon]

Before you go out and drop a big wad of cash though, I suggest you go to the dealership, maybe with a pair of your speakers (if you can bring them) and check out each receiver with your speakers. See how it sounds. See what it's like to use the remote, navigate the menus, etc.

 

[dponeill]

Either one you buy will need an external amp if you want too get the most out off it. Both will make excellent pre/pro's, on the power side the 4600 sucks.

To make a blanket statement like that is is just pure nonsense.

 

[gene]

Either one you buy will need an external amp if you want too get the most out off it. Both will make excellent pre/pro's, on the power side the 4600 sucks.

Really? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you measure it?

Well I did (see power measurements) and found it to do 116wpc at 8 ohms 175wpc at 4 ohms, 2 channels driven at 0.1% distortion without holding the line voltage constant. In addition, it had a very low output impedance (under 130mohms, see measurements up to 20kHz for a receiver).

The SNR was also very good (> 81dB @ 1 watt, unweighted and preamp included!), see our tabulated measurements.

I know, but you're probably gonna say, "What about ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN?"

Well here is my reply

The All Channels Driven Fallacy Dedicated Forum

The ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN Editorial


In any event, the RX-V4600 has some pretty decent amps for a receiver with plenty of headroom to earn it a THX Select2 certification. If you are running inefficient (<89dB SPL @ 1 meter) 4 ohm nominal impedance speakers in a reasonably large room (greater than 2500cuft), then I do recommend an external power amp, at least for the 3 front channels (L,C,R). But I would also make this recommendation for any sub $3000 receiver.

Regarding choosing between the RX-V4600 or RX-V2600
I would pick the latter in a heart beat simply b/c of:
1) HDMI Switching, Scaling
2) Cheaper price
3) Likely at least as good amp performance as the 4600 which is what I am told by Yamaha. Though we will confirm this in a formal review soon.

I hope this helps.

 

[Dezoris]

Really? How did you come to that conclusion? Did you measure it?

Well I did (see power measurements) and found it to do 116wpc at 8 ohms 175wpc at 4 ohms, 2 channels driven at 0.1% distortion without holding the line voltage constant. In addition, it had a very low output impedance (under 130mohms, see measurements up to 20kHz for a receiver).

The SNR was also very good (> 81dB @ 1 watt, unweighted and preamp included!), see our tabulated measurements.

I know, but you're probably gonna say, "What about ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN?"

Well here is my reply

The All Channels Driven Fallacy Dedicated Forum

The ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN Editorial


In any event, the RX-V4600 has some pretty decent amps for a receiver with plenty of headroom to earn it a THX Select2 certification. If you are running inefficient (<89dB SPL @ 1 meter) 4 ohm nominal impedance speakers in a reasonably large room (greater than 2500cuft), then I do recommend an external power amp, at least for the 3 front channels (L,C,R). But I would also make this recommendation for any sub $3000 receiver.

Regarding choosing between the RX-V4600 or RX-V2600
I would pick the latter in a heart beat simply b/c of:
1) HDMI Switching, Scaling
2) Cheaper price
3) Likely at least as good amp performance as the 4600 which is what I am told by Yamaha. Though we will confirm this in a formal review soon.

I hope this helps.

Can you comment on the Oplus de-interlacer chip in this Yamaha, do you know which model it is, they make several chips which have been used on many budget boards from video cards, to projectors. I don't assume Yamaha went with the higher end chip for this reciever.

I think they just added a cheap de-interlacer as amatter of staying ahead of competition by having it on a spec sheet.

For the price, I have my doubts. I certainly won't be signing up for this model until I see some testing on the chipset to give me a reason why I would want to upconvert any of my sources with that chipset.

 

[gcmarshall]

GENE - Thank you for weighing in. Your info, as always, is clear, concise and well-researched. My problem with the 2600 is that it is NOT out yet and I am having severe audio/movie withdrawals with my old Sony having died. Yamaha told me mid-November for a release date on the 2600. I need intervention, b/c I am actually about to spend hundreds more just to get a receiver in my house sooner rather than later (eg, the 4600, which is available now).

 

[gene]

Can you comment on the Oplus de-interlacer chip in this Yamaha, do you know which model it is, they make several chips which have been used on many budget boards from video cards, to projectors.

I am not sure since we don't yet have our review sample. Regardless, the deinterlacing can be bypassed which it probably should if you have a quality DVD player or front projector.l

I need intervention, b/c I am actually about to spend hundreds more just to get a receiver in my house sooner rather than later (eg, the 4600, which is available now).

The 4600 is a great receiver and if you don't need the HDMI feature of the 2600 than go for the 4600, especially since it has I.Link! Otherwise you may wish to consider the Denon AVR-4306 or 3806 depending on your budget. You can't lose with any of these and I feel your pain. Right now I have no home theater as I await completed construction of our new home theater center (hopefully this December).

 

[3Jax]

GC,

I also feel your pain as I am waiting on the new 2600 to power the HT in my new home. I actually purchased the 4600 from Abt (authorized Yamaha e-tailer) about six weeks ago then read about the 2600 specs from Audioholics at Cedia and realized that I had pulled the trigger too soon. So I decided to return the 4600 and place a preorder with Abt for the 2600. Since I don't need i-link, the 2600 is worth waiting for since it has similar power and HDMI switching/scaling for a great price ($1170 at Abt w/ no tax). The only feature I actually will miss that the 4600 has is HD Radio as I live in the home of Clear Channel and have several staions to choose from. I just hope the 2600 ships sooner than later with no delays as I just purchased a set of Phase Tech PC 9.1's and 3.1 II Center (great review btw Jaxvon) and can't wait to enjoy 7.1 in my new room. In this case, I hope all good things do come to those who wait.

 

[jaxvon]

Ha, thanks. Be forewarned that the PC9.1 speakers are 4 ohms, which means no cranking them on the 2600 without a separate amp. I hope I made this clear in the review.

 

[3Jax]

jaxvon,

Yes the Phase Tech 9.1's are 4 ohms but have a sensitivity of 92dB, which is more forgiving for potentially "underpowered" amplifiers like what the 4600/2600 have onboard. I demo'd them using the 4600 at my dealer and although we didn't listen at extreme volumes, the 4600 seemed to hold its own and they complemented each other nicely. Since the 2600 hasn't shipped yet, I don't know how it will do with these 4 ohm speakers, but if it does have trouble pushing them, then I will probably supplement it with an external 2 or 3 channel amp for the front soundstage. I do appreciate the feedback, though, and I'll post my results when the 2600 finally arrives.