Yamaha RXV2500 vs RXV2600 diff in sound

[Cabshiraz]

Good day everyone,

Would anyone know if there's a difference in sound quality between the two above mentioned receivers?

I know about the HDMI stuff, but this no interest to me as I plug my HDMI cable directly into my TV...

However, I am looking more for the audio capacity of the receiver, and as I could have a 2500 for a very good price ($875 CAD) as opposed to $1400 for the new one....It is probably more logical to buy the 2500...

But I still want to know..... And while you are there, do you think that the Cambridge receiver Azur 540 could do a better job than the Yam???

Thanks for your time

Cabshiraz

 

[Apogee]

Hi there,

I have the 2500 and I listened to the 2600 for just 5 minutes but on a different setup than my home system ( I have Energy C5 ), and for the low volume, (-25 db setting), it sounds the same. If you read the review here, the 2600 suppose to be better for 4 ohm speaker but if you are using 8 ohm, it should be fine (correct me any expert here?). Power rating is the same. 130 w.

Where did you get the quote for 875 Cdn? plus 15% taxes? I paid 1100 taxes incl . 11 months ago. Happy with it.

I don't have HDMI or HDTV yet, another year or so, ...and I am more into music than video..... SACD / DVD-A is quite good with 2500.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Cabshiraz: YES, the 2600 is a better sounding receiver than the 2500. It was discussed in another thread.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16724

 

[gcmarshall]

to say one is "better" sounding is a highly subjective statement and dependent on each person's own tastes and ability to hear differences. additionally, different speaker systems and room acoustics further complicate the analysis. to say that one receiver sounds better than another is one person's opinion and is not statement of fact . in fact, yamaha told me there is minimal, if any, difference between the 2500/2600 in terms of sound production. they indicated to me the main difference/upgrade is in connectivity features and conversion features. in effect, they told me that if i did not need the newer connectivity/conversion features, that i would notice no difference is sound/performance (and save money) by buying the 2500.

do your own research; do your own listening tests. forums like this are great for getting ideas, opinions, and solutions (i use it myself quite a bit). but, do not rely upon the opinions of others to decide how to spend your hard-earned money. only you can make that final decision.

 

[jcPanny]

Audioholics review

Audioholics named the 2600 product of the year. They are also currently working on a review so you might consider waiting for their amplifier measurements.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Let me add a few facts to better clarify my opinion on the 2600/2500 sound. My room is acoustically treated with 6in thick DIY panels on the first reflection points, including the ceiling. I have a behringer DEQ2496 with the ECM8000 mic. Subs are calibrated with the Behringer PEQ and whole system was measured with it and the Yamaha Parametric EQ was tailored to achieve as flat as possible response without any boosting of parameters, only cuts. Speakers are Paradigm monitor series all around except for the surround back which are Paradigm Atoms, and front presence which are Paradigm cinema 90's. Subs are Velodynes.

2600 was set to the same PEQ settings as the 2500 was and then I double checked the response with the RTA.

I could defiantly hear a difference in the high-end clarity. I then called my son in and let him play some of his songs. I then asked him if he could hear anything different than before and he said Quote: "yeah dad I hear some of the higher notes that I did not know were there before"

So in my opinion, yes it sounds better Was it a Blind A\B test no, but I owned the 2500 long enough remember what it was doing in the high-end and the 2600 is doing something different.

 

[Cabshiraz]

Thanks

Hi everyone,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. Here's a little bit more info on me....

The next receiver I will buy will need to perform at low levels, because I live in appartment, and I don't like disturbing others (and vice-versa).

However, when they go out on the weekend.... at least once a month, then...I treat myself..

The receiver will play with Boston Acoustic VR3 speakers....

http://www.bostonacoustics.com/home_product.aspx?category_id=2&product_id=266

Yes, I may have the RXV2500 for $875 CAD as they are getting rid of them for the new RXV2600.... The price of the RXV2600 should be around $1300 to $1400 CAD

Considering the 40% difference in price, is the RXV2600 still worth it? I could buy the DVD750 (5DVD player) and still have some money left.!!!!

I'd like to be able to compare both.... (If I could, I would not need this post !!)

Considering that....I am anxious to read your thoughts..

Thanks again

Cabshiraz

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Cabshiraz, if HDMI switching and up-conversion and DVD-Audio decoding at the receiver level are not important to you then get the 2500 becuase it is an excellent reveiver. However, Being able to apply the PEQ and THX music mode to DVD-Audio was worth the difference in price to me.

 

[tritonstudio]

if you are so strict b/c of your tight budget then go get a discounted 2500. In term of sound wise, you can't hear the difference in the same setup. The 2600 have many new features that is "best bang buck" will work with your current component & your future upgrade stuffs. If you don't have a problem with the budget then get the 2600 b/c it's the newest "toy" in town !

2 cents.

 

[Robosapien]

RX-V1500 vs RX-V1600

I just picked up an RX-V1500. The salesman assured me that there was no difference with the RX-V1600 other than XM radio and HDMI. I figured I could live without these options and save about 400.00$ CDN at the same time. Trouble is I'm not happy with the sound. TV and stereo music in general sound very thin and while movies have excellent detail and more than enough punch, I find voices, especially high pitch ones(women and children), to be very annoying - ''fingernails on a blackboard'' annoying. So if someone could confirm that the 1600 sounds considerably better in that respect I'll return the 1500 tomorrow thus solving my dilemna. I was considering switching brands(Denon or Marantz) but I like the features and the reliability of the Yamaha.
PS - I also own Boston Acoustic speakers - CR series

 

[Nick250]

I just picked up an RX-V1500. The salesman assured me that there was no difference with the RX-V1600 other than XM radio and HDMI. I figured I could live without these options and save about 400.00$ CDN at the same time. Trouble is I'm not happy with the sound. TV and stereo music in general sound very thin and while movies have excellent detail and more than enough punch, I find voices, especially high pitch ones(women and children), to be very annoying - ''fingernails on a blackboard'' annoying. So if someone could confirm that the 1600 sounds considerably better in that respect I'll return the 1500 tomorrow thus solving my dilemna. I was considering switching brands(Denon or Marantz) but I like the features and the reliability of the Yamaha.
PS - I also own Boston Acoustic speakers - CR series

I as mentioned in another of your posts this is not a receiver issue. The receiver just does not have that much to do with the sound. Let me repeat that. The receiver has practially nothing to do with the sound you hear in your listening room. From a real world prespective it's just about all speakers and room acoustics. It's your money of course, but if you really want to improve your sound attend to speakers and room acoustics.

 

[PENG]

Was it a Blind A\B test no, but I owned the 2500 long enough remember what it was doing in the high-end and the 2600 is doing something different.

Good for you if you can remember......., not everyone can.
Besides, conventional CD players can only go up to 20,000 Hz, and most of us have hard time hearing frequencies that high.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Good for you if you can remember......., not everyone can.
Besides, conventional CD players can only go up to 20,000 Hz, and most of us have hard time hearing frequencies that high.

Well we were only talking about a few hours, I listened to a few songs, took some notes, unhooked, and boxed up the 2500, drove to Tweeters, traded up, came back home, set up the 2600 and then listened to the same songs again.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Was it a Blind A\B test no, .

Thanks for this bit of crucial bit of info. This answers everything for many.
If that 2600 is doing something different in the frequency band, it is measurable. I just don't see that difference being there. Maybe my eyes are going too

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well we were only talking about a few hours, I listened to a few songs, took some notes, unhooked, and boxed up the 2500, drove to Tweeters, traded up, came back home, set up the 2600 and then listened to the same songs again.

Well, those few hours is eternity as far as memory is concerned for small differences., not to mention human bias Incontestable.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_thread/thread/2d3d415422f4b660/67f6ac891b8f37f9?hl=en#67f6ac891b8f37f9

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/bu-wbb060905.php

http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Topics/perception.html

 

[mtrycrafts]

Good day everyone,

Would anyone know if there's a difference in sound quality between the two above mentioned receivers?
Cabshiraz

Not to worry about a non issue

As mentioned elsewhere, speakers, room acoustics and the software are the issues in modern home audio reproduction.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Well, those few hours is eternity as far as memory is concerned for small differences., not to mention human bias Incontestable.


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/browse_thread/thread/2d3d415422f4b660/67f6ac891b8f37f9?hl=en#67f6ac891b8f37f9

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/bu-wbb060905.php

http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Topics/perception.html

Yes that is true and I agree, however, when I write in my notes that a symbol crash is smeared and sibilance on a female voice and then I play the same songs again a few hours later and the symbol crash is perfectly clear and the sibilance is gone, that has nothing to do with memory. Now either there was something wrong with my 2500 or the 2600 has a better amp section. It is one or the other. The 2600 uses different parts in the amp section than the 2500, I can not tell you if that is the reason for the improvement but it is a slightly different amp.

Also, remember I was not the only person who noticed it either. To be honest, I don't see why some are having such a hard time believing it anyway. I am the biggest sceptic when it comes to stuff like this and I was excpecting the 2600 to sound exactly the same as the 2500. I only traded up for features. I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Robosapien]

Nick250

I agree to a point with what you are saying about receivers having very little to do with the overall sound quality except that I had these same speakers, in the same room, hooked up to an old HK stereo amp and while the sound was far from perfect - there was no sibilance. You've gotta wonder about those people who spend obscene amounts of cash on high end audiophile systems. What are they hearing?
Anyhow, I just hooked up a center channel(CRC-7) and reran the auto setup. The mids are more rounded now and I don't need to turn the volume up as high to be able to be hear the dialogue properly - thus attenuating some of the sibilance.
I'm thinking that if the RX-V1600 were, even , 10% better in the highs than the RX-V1500 I probably would be willing to spend the extra bucks. It could mean the difference between good sound and great sound.

 

[gcrouse]

My Yamaha 3090 has problems with it's source select motor, so I'm looking at one of these as a replacement- especially considering the killer deals on the discontinued 2500! Not that specs are everything- but is Yamaha getting worse?

Comparing my DSP-A3090 and my Dad's DSP-A1 versus the brand-new best of everything RX-V2600:

RMS Power 8ohms, 20-20k @.015% THD vs. @.04% THD
Damping Factor 8ohms, 20-20k: 200 vs. 140
Freq Response: 20-20k +0/-.5dB vs. 10-100K +0/-3dB
THD 1V input, 20-20k: .005% vs. .02%
Chan Separation 1k/10k: 70/60dB vs. 60/45dB
Audio SNR: 96dB vs. 100dB <-----ok, this one got better
Weight (maybe a "quality" indicator?): 3090=46lbs, A1=52lbs, 2600=38lbs

Of course the video bandwidth and connections is night and day against these older models, not to mention the new 6.1 and DSP modes. Just wondering if Yamaha cut corners to squeeze all that into a $1400 box. Of course the 3090 and A1 had MSRPs over $2K and $3K....

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yes that is true and I agree, however, when I write in my notes that a symbol crash is smeared and sibilance on a female voice and then I play the same songs again a few hours later and the symbol crash is perfectly clear and the sibilance is gone, that has nothing to do with memory.

But it has everything to do with listening protocol, bias and perception. And one attempt and a difference can be from a lucky guess, nothing more. Now, if you performed a credible DBT with levels matched to .1dB spl, and was able to differentiate between the two 15 out of 20 attempts, (not so easy) then you have something legitimate and perhaps do this outcome consistently.

Writing things down is subjective in itself as well. Prone to cause problems, especially for just one such writing.


Now either there was something wrong with my 2500 or the 2600 has a better amp section.

Yes, one of the units could be defective. That is always a possibility. Therefore, it would have been good to test the unit if it meets factory specs.



The 2600 uses different parts in the amp section than the 2500, I can not tell you if that is the reason for the improvement but it is a slightly different amp.

That is not the issue either, nor a possible different topology. These are audio myths and urban legends.

I just read a review in the on line, paid subscription, Audio Critic, of a $5K Bryston 8ch amp and a $230 BehringerA500. Sonically transparent, both of them when not clipped.

Also, remember I was not the only person who noticed it either.


Yes, I know of these inputs: a wife heard the difference, from another room at that, and she is not even aware of what is going on in audio.
You see, these other persons are equally biased. No one is immune. You have to test properly, or it is unreliable and not much meaning to it.

To be honest, I don't see why some are having such a hard time believing it anyway.

It has nothing to do with believing. That is based in faith. What one needs to convince is with credible data from credible listening protocols. I am afraid yours and countless others are just anecdotes of unknown quantity. Besides, 30 years of DBT listening has shown that when differences are present, it can be measured in a big way. And, well designed components are transparent.


I am the biggest sceptic when it comes to stuff like this and I was excpecting the 2600 to sound exactly the same as the 2500. I only traded up for features. I was pleasantly surprised.

Trading up for features is as it should be about Being a skeptic doesn't give one immunity from bias or an ability to conduct a good comparison.