I have a client that wants to upgrade his AVR. It will be used for gaming via PS4 heavily. He also wants to utilize streaming services/network capabilities. So looking for a pretty rich feature set, unsure of multi zone at this point.

His old AVR is pre HDMI so I know there will probably be more upgrades once I get to his home.

My concern is the recent run on HDMI HDCP 2.2 issues. With all the goings on Yamaha seems to be the brand with the least amount of issues in that arena.

I have never used Yamaha but really considering the line.

What say all y'all, what is the most consistent brand in this era of turmoil in the HDMI HDCP 2.2 arena.

I will be onsite next week to get more specifics on his system. He has no automation in the home and is using some form of universal remote (looking to change that).

The good news is he like nice things, and owns them. He is also the one whom complimented me (mentioned in another thread) on the rack build out at his company.

He is also the one that cuts the checks, and does so freely when he is all in.

You won't regret the Yamaha decision. I have installed several over the past few years. They are very stable. Expect streaming issues from time to time when SiriusXm or Pandora decide to upgrade security protocols on their servers...and don't communicate with AVR vendors. They eventually resolve them, but it can take a week or so...at the worst. This may happen once or twice a year. Other than that, the smart phone app is awesome. Very simple to use, yet has advanced features if one wants to use them. I recommend running the customer's unit in your home or shop for a week or so since it is your first one. They are just now rolling out the 2015 Aventage line which is HDCP 2.2 compatible. It may take a few weeks for all the models to hit distributors, but Amazon has some now...if you want to pay retail.

I believe the term we're looking for is HDCP 2.2 compliant, while the HDCP 2.2 compatible ones don't have the new chipsets.

The Yamaha website doesn't use either term, compatible or compliant, so it's hard to tell. This from the RX-A850 hints that they probably mean compliant:


I'd phone them up and ask. This is important enough to be really sure.

Thanks guys, after reading a few other threads it seems the consensus overall that at this time that Yamaha has the fewest concerns.

I really expected more responses off this, possible nobody want to speak out against their current line up.

Marantz, oinkeeoh and most likely Denon (sad) are out by my findings and previous experience.

Have not ruled out Sony yet, not to much yeah or ney on it.

Why no D+M? Support issues, or their sales model?

Perhaps, aside from some dedicated Sonyites, there's not too much attention on Sony because few people use it. The Sonyites are in love, so they don't need to comment, and the others won't have any comments. I've avoided them for years, mostly based on the comments of a couple of guys who sold them at retail. The advice at that time was "if you're going to buy Sony, only buy the ES." Kind of like, "well, if you must...." Pioneer AVRs are also in that category.

I haven't done many receivers for a while, having turned mostly to commercial work, but Yamaha has almost always been my go-to brand.

Sony:

Im not a Sony fanboy. I've used 2 of the ES models so far in the last few months, mostly because they are 2.2 compliant and they were the best of that category imo.
They work well. Easy setup and so far have been reliable. What I like is that they have ir in and passhrough, and also easy gui over network.

Integra models will work. Yes, there have been issues with HDMI chipset, like many other manufacturers, but thats in the past.

Sony probably has the best hdmi boards out there
Think about the fact that they are not only building bluray players but receivers and awesome 4k tvs and the Only 4k media player but they are also the only company that also produces movies
Sony most likly has more knowledgeand and experience on this technology across the board than every other manufacture mentioned in this thread.
Also the current lineup of es receivers sound very good and have a 5 year warranty, are easy to setup and offer great integration

This is confusing me a bit. What is "the recent run on HDMI HDCP 2.2 issues"? Since there are actually very few receivers that have the capability, how do we have problems already? Or are you leaning towards Yamaha on basic reliability factors mentioned here on this site?

I wouldn't necessarily call this an era of turmoil, I would just say manufacturers need to get there sh$t together and upgrade some HDMI boards and refresh some models. If you do C4, do the Sony. Yamaha has upgrades coming as well as D&M.

So, I've seen you posting about compliant vs. compatible. In the english language, I think both are close enough to the same meaning, that to say one doesn't guarantee working with all HDCP 2.2 devices is misleading at best.

I got the following definitions:

com·pli·ant
kəmˈplīənt/Submit
adjective
adjective: compliant
1.
inclined to agree with others or obey rules, especially to an excessive degree; acquiescent.
"good-humored, eagerly compliant girls"
synonyms:acquiescent, amenable, biddable, tractable, complaisant, accommodating, cooperative; More
antonyms:recalcitrant
meeting or in accordance with rules or standards.
"the systems are Y2K compliant"

com·pat·i·ble
kəmˈpadəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without conflict.
"the fruitiness of Beaujolais is compatible with a number of meat dishes"

So the definitions I found for compatible and compliant both seem to say that an item that is HDCP 2.2 compatible or compliant should work with all HDCP 2.2 devices.

I suspect this is a case of some company releasing product that doesn't really work, and trying to use the english language to weasel word their way out of making their product work. So, please clarify what you think the difference is, and why this isn't just some manufacturer playing weasel word games with the english language. (Because if it is some manufacturer, then the other manufacturers may not even use the same wording!)

I racked up two Marantz AV8802 last week, but they won't be hooked up and functional for another 4-6 weeks.  These are pre-amps and not really AVRs so probably don't fit your requirements.

I hope they work... the original AV8802 wasn't HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 but they just started shipping the updated model with new HDMI spec about a month ago.

Brian, I'm amazed that you're playing this word game! I thought I was the only one accused of doing that!

It makes total sense that existing words can have additional special meanings attached to them for new REAL technical details. Instead of compatible and compliant, we could have used, for instance, the words gorapestic and grebapestic. However, since I just made those words up, those words would be harder for folks to remember and even harder to distinguish.

I'm reminded that the "compliance" is the flexible attachment of a loudspeaker cone to the loudspeaker's outer structure. You never complained about that. And don't you have an objection to "compatible" as in "backwards compatible"? That could just as well have been "backwards compliant."

Remember this?

This is from the first post at [Link: remotecentral.com]:


I thought you were up on things as of then. You posted a few times in that thread.

And hey, what's wrong with using those two words these ways, anyhow?

I thought it was just you on another of your Ernie tirades where you go off for five postings on grammatical issues. I've learned to ignore most of that in your postings, it makes them quicker to read.

To me, this whole thing looks like it is ruled by no standards body, or a standards body that is horribly ineffective. When you have a standard, where if people buy an item that is "compatible" it won't show a picture, because you need a device that is labeled "compliant"... you have an epic fail. (And the fail is doubly so when the manufacturers don't even use those exact words, in describing the feature!) Standards that are this wishy washy inevitably fail, because consumers get burned, and they take the only action available to them, which is take it out on the company that sold them the item.

We've seen this kind of issue with standards before. Miracast was supposed to be great, it would finally let people have a wireless connection between a device, and the display. But the Miracast standards group was weak, and did things like allowing a company like Microsoft to put a Miracast label on their device, when they only produced drivers for Windows, while the standards promised interoperability between any two Miracast devices. In this case the devices according to Microsoft were compatible, it's just they weren't supported. Consumers quickly got out the word that Miracast was a debacle, and companies like Intel who had invested boat loads of money to add the capability to their chipsets, were stuck with the hardware to implement the feature, without the multiplatform support, software or interoperability testing. The Wikipedia article on Miracast even had a section entitled, "Miracast Failure". It has taken Intel several years to bring out WiDi, which is basically the Miracast standard, with a standards group with some spine, proper testing and cross platform support.

Looks to me like the HDMI HDCP 2.2 group has taken a chapter almost straight out of the Miracast playbook. I doubt this is going to go well, unless someone in that industry steps up quickly to fix the debacle. Customers don't put up with explanations like, "The device states it is HDCP 2.2 compatible, which it is... it just won't show a picture, for that you need a compliant device." I can hear the customer support saying that to consumers, and then the consumers returning the devices to where they were purchased.

Brian, please tell us about the Elcaset.