Yamaha Announces RX-V2600 Receiver with HDMI Upconversion & Scaling!

[bknauss]

I see there's an on screen display, and the upconversion to HDMI, but does the OSD have the ability to run through HDMI? My current receiver can only do the OSD through s-video and not through component. Quite annoying.

I will be interested to see what the real power ratings are also. 130Wx7 at what sort of distortion? And are they going to do the "well, we measured the stereo power, and just slapped a 'x 7 channels' next to it"?

 

[gene]

but does the OSD have the ability to run through HDMI?

Yes.

And are they going to do the "well, we measured the stereo power, and just slapped a 'x 7 channels' next to it"?

Its going to be the same as its always been with a majority of receivers out there. No it won't do 130x7 simultaneously, nor should it. As we stated probably more than 1000 times in the forums and our articles, this is an unrealistic test condition and is also unfair to place such requirements on an amplifier, let alone a receiver! What is more important is if the amp section will be clean and have good dynamic headroom. This hasn't been a problem in the past with 2500/4600 so I don't suspect it will be now. IF you plan on driving low efficient 4 ohm speakers, simply preamp out to a separate power amp. Any way you look at it, you now have a processor that will pretty much blow the doors off of any separates processor at 3 times its price.

 

[6kids&adog]

Another receiver I have been watching that looks good on paper is the yet to be released JVC RX-D702B. It also promises up-conversion to HDMI (2 HDMI inputs / 1 HDMI output), 7.1 channels, 150 watts per channel, wireless connection to play audio from home PC and some other nifty features. The retail price is supposed to be about $800. The unit is scheduled for release in September 2005. It would be great if Audioholics could review both the Yamaha and the JVC.

 

[red-goose]

A 4600 on order? I wish! I received my 4600 two weeks ago. :-(

Forgive my ignorance... So, the 2600 can take a component input from my DVD and put it out the HDMI? That is VERY key feature for me. Teaching my wife and youngsters how to switch video sources on the TV going between cable and DVD is a pain. Want simplicity.


If that's true, I'll send the 4600 back. I don't see much value in i.link in my system and I don't have multi-zone requirements.

So teach me: Why should I care about i.link? IMHO: I'm in the wi-fi networking biz and I think that's the way to go for the networked home.

-Philip

 

[Duffinator]

Gene, to ask my favorite question...

Will the volume show on all inputs with the HDMI output connection? Either way this is going to smoke the Denon 3806.

Thanks

 

[Geoh]

What do you guys think the benefit of the internal scaler of the 2600?
Seems to me most displays will just take this scaled output and scale it yet again to it's native resolution.

geoh

 

[Duffinator]

What do you guys think the benefit of the internal scaler of the 2600?
Seems to me most displays will just take this scaled output and scale it yet again to it's native resolution.

geoh

The display will detect the input and if it's at the native resolution it will pass the signal through without rescaling or deinterlacing. So the question is will the receiver (or other input device) or the display have a better quality scaler/deinterlacer? IMO it's always best to have two options so you can choose the best one. There will be options in the receiver on the video output.

 

[azcoyote]

Figure a street price of no more than $1300.00. For the the extremely power hungry, get yourself 3 Outlaw mono amps at $300.00 each for the center and mains. Total cost $2200.00. Unless you must have i link for SACD, this is an unbeatable "high end" set up, for a "low end" price. Life is good!!

OK. I am all ears on this one... Throw three of these for up front on some Axioms (insert your pref here) and setup some presence speakers with the receiver then? That sounds like a pretty amazing way to get your HT going. I am building out int he next 8 weeks (moving houses) so this is right up my alley. I was planning on a 4600 though.

Again, can anyone give a good reason for selecting one over the other?

Thanks,
Wiley

 

[newfmp3]

my 4600 will be here in a few days. Already on the way.

But, if I was able, i would wait and see the 2600 and go for the external amp idea. Sounds like a great pre/pro idea.

I could see the 4600 dropping in price soon. I think Yamaha might have just shot themselves in the foot in a way. Why buy a 4600 now? I see no point besides I link. At this point we are assuming the 4600 has a much better amp section.

Does Yamaha even do firmware upgrades on their receivers besides the z9? I don't know if it's even possible to update the 4600 with a few of the 2600's features. I can understand them not trying on the older 2500, but the 4600 is just now hitting stores in Canada, and all of a sudden, their lower model has newer features????? The 2600 had to have been in the testing stages while the 4600 was being released, so they have to known that this was going to happen before hand.

It just doesn't make sense at all to have a lower model with more features then your just relased top end ( or 2nd top end ) receiver

 

[azcoyote]

But, if I was able, i would wait and see the 2600 and go for the external amp idea. Sounds like a great pre/pro idea.

Waiting is no problem. I have 2 months to go before I buy...

As far as upgradability, I have to be honest and say I don't want to get back into buying items every 6 months. I have the passion but I also have a wife and two little daughters to spend my time and money on.

That being said, I have the wife sold on a pretty amazing system for the new house so no complaining from me. I am a "buy once" guy and let the system go it's duration. My current system was purchased in 1998 and is still a phenominal setup with Infinity towers and a top of the line (that year) Kenwood. So, I have to do this right the first time. So like I said, I have little intention to upgrades in the future which mean unless there is something really compelling about iLink, I don't want to worry about it. I want to build it once and sit back and watch the world spin on my new HD Samsung.


Thanks all,

Wiley

 

[bknauss]

Its going to be the same as its always been with a majority of receivers out there. No it won't do 130x7 simultaneously, nor should it. As we stated probably more than 1000 times in the forums and our articles, this is an unrealistic test condition and is also unfair to place such requirements on an amplifier, let alone a receiver! What is more important is if the amp section will be clean and have good dynamic headroom. This hasn't been a problem in the past with 2500/4600 so I don't suspect it will be now. IF you plan on driving low efficient 4 ohm speakers, simply preamp out to a separate power amp. Any way you look at it, you now have a processor that will pretty much blow the doors off of any separates processor at 3 times its price.

Gene - I think we could have a good debate on what should be expected out of a receiver and what marketing numbers are stated in the specs. I agree that its unrealistic to expect a receiver to do 130x7 or close to that. But if you check out measurements of some amps/receivers 2 channel power vs. 5/7 channel power, the total power sometimes is roughly the same. So instead of having the spec'd power, you have a fraction of it. I call that lying. But in the world of bigger is better, companies are somewhat forced to tell these lies while the FTC and CEA standards are out of date. Hopefully the CEA standard currently being worked on will be used at the FTC standard and all of this stuff will dissapear.

 

[BTex]

Gene, Do you know how the 2600 upconverts?
I was just looking at a Sony (STRDA7100ES) which claims to do hdmi upconversion. That is till I found a post on another forum stating it only upconverts to 480i. Besides being able to do osd over hdmi I cant see a reason to use the upconversion. Who wants their pretty 720p downsampled to 480i?
If you can find out if it does 720p analog to 720p hdmi, and 1080i-->1080i for that matter, that would be great.
thanks

 

[BrianUPS]

"Do we really need this?"

If you really want a really great Yamaha receiver get the RX-V4600. It has HDMI switching, but no upconversion! Do we really need it? You figure you most likely have only 2 HDMI sources anyway so why bother picking up the RX-V2600. Does the 2600 have iLink......NOPE!!!!!!!!! Spend the extra money, and pick up the 4600 instead.

 

[gene]

But if you check out measurements of some amps/receivers 2 channel power vs. 5/7 channel power, the total power sometimes is roughly the same. So instead of having the spec'd power, you have a fraction of it. I call that lying.

Please refer to our article: The All Channels Driven Controversy

It's no more lying than a separates amplifier company claiming 200wpc x 7 utilizing a linear a/b amp and single power cord. Given typical efficiencies of linear amp designs, factoring in power supply losses and power factor, you are at a best case scenario of 40-45% efficiency. With a 15A line (UL Limit on any consumer approved UL gear in the USA) you can deliver: 120*15*0.45 = 810 watts to the speakers. Now divider that # into 7 channels and your 200wpc x 7 amp just turned into a 115wpc amp

Is this a bad thing? Not really, since you don't listen to continuous sine waves in all channels simultaneously!

Why do some print pubs publish such inflated power #'s? B/C they usually use a VARIAC to hold the line voltage constant (another unrealistic test condition) and some go further by removing the rail fuses and replacing them with higher current rated ones so they can conduct their unrealistic test scenarios in unrealistic test loads....

To say a receiver company is lying when delivering a product which usually has superior processing power, bass management, and features than dedicated separates processors costing 3X the amount - simply b/c they can't produce full power in the bogus "all channels driven" test (especially when they never claim they could) - is very silly at best IMO.

 

[RLA]

you are at a best case scenario of 40-45% efficiency. With a 15A line

This statement is absolutely without question totally accurate and may even be a little bit optimistic Unless your amp is plugged into your dryer outlet
PS Please don’t do that

 

[bknauss]

To say a receiver company is lying when delivering a product which usually has superior processing power, bass management, and features than dedicated separates processors costing 3X the amount - simply b/c they can't produce full power in the bogus "all channels driven" test (especially when they never claim they could) - is very silly at best IMO.

Gene - I'm not saying that spec'd multi channel power numbers are usually obtainable in most consumer conditions. But should it be allowed for someone to go into Best Buy, see a receiver quoted at doing 100Wx7 or whatever, and never being able to obtain it? I know I'd be pretty ticked off if I bought a new car and was never able to hit the gas mileage that was stated. I don't care if one spec or many specs are over-inflated... a lie is a lie is a lie. If the numbers say "A" watts x "B" channels, that receiver should be able to put out that amount of power given a stated set of conditions (1kHz sine wave, 1% THD+N pops up a decent amount of the time). Of all of the sub, mono, and 2 channel amps I've measured, there have been only a few times the "A" watts x "B" channels has not been met or nowhere near met. Maybe I need to broaden the companies I've looked at. There shouldn't be an excuse for multichannel amps.

As for sine waves driving channels, this is obviously the best way to strip away a numerous amount of variables when measuring power. As we've shown with our comments, unless there are explicit instructions about how to measure amplifiers, someone will go out there and bend the rules to inflate numbers and make their product look better.

My posts were not meant as a slam toward Yamaha. In fact, the reason for my original post was due to general personal interest in the receiver. My questions arose from research on several other receivers and seeing their negative sides.

I'm just trying to make my point for Joe Consumer. He should be told the reality of products even if some other wonderful features are in the product. Wonderful features in one area shouldn't allow for BS in other areas.

 

[MDS]

Gene - I'm not saying that spec'd multi channel power numbers are usually obtainable in most consumer conditions. But should it be allowed for someone to go into Best Buy, see a receiver quoted at doing 100Wx7 or whatever, and never being able to obtain it?
.....
I'm just trying to make my point for Joe Consumer. He should be told the reality of products even if some other wonderful features are in the product. Wonderful features in one area shouldn't allow for BS in other areas.

Everyone that believes that the manufacturers are 'lying' makes your exact argument. The problem is not with the way the power is rated but rather in the way you interpret '100 x 7'. It simply means that there are 7 amplifiers and each is capable of 100 watts. Nowhere does it say that it is 100 wpc simultaneously to all channels and one should not infer that it is (or should be) if it is not explicitly stated. Regardless, as gene has pointed out many, many times, the all channels driven scenario is unrealistic and irrelevant because it doesn't occur in real life music.

 

[gene]

The problem is not with the way the power is rated but rather in the way you interpret '100 x 7'.

Amen! MDS you just earned a chicklet

 

[Magoo]

Uh Oh.
I *thought* I had just decided on Pioneer's VSX-74TXVi; it appears I may need to reconsider.
So I don't hijack this thread, I should probably start a new thread to get some thoughts on a comparison between the two....

 

[bknauss]

As long as we're firming up interpretations, can we get rid of watts RMS? No such thing.