I thought the SX-1250 was unstompable! Not designed for lower than 4 ohm loads? Wow, this is like hearing King Kong cannot bench press 500 lbs.The Aragon will stomp all over that Pioneer--especially under a difficult load. I have owned two Aragon 2004's and still own two Aragon 4004's. I used both to drive Infinity Kappa 9's that drop below 1 ohm and they remained stable.
I thought the SX-1250 was unstompable!
I don't think the 2004 is enough amp either... Why side-step?
I don't think the 2004 is enough amp either... Why side-step?
Why is the 2004 a poor choice?
I don't think the 2004 is enough amp either... Why side-step?
To the OP: Did you ever resolve your issue with one channel of the 1250 being louder than the other? I suggested a couple of approaches for determining if the output is truly different (vs a function of placement and varying levels of room reinforcement), but never got a response.
The move is certainly not a "side-step". Just pop the hood and look. The simple fact that the manufacturer states a minimal increase in power rating @4 ohms vs the 8 ohm power rating says a lot. An amp that truly "doubles down" as impedance is halved has "got the goods" to back it up.
I was asking silentnet why he considered it a poor choice. Looks to me, at least on paper, that it could do a better job with lower impedance loads. The 1250 is a very good sounding (and very well-built) amp, but I don't think the handling of difficult loads was a primary design objective. For most speakers, it is a fine choice. For more difficult speakers, perhaps not as much.
Here's the crux of it (emphasis mine). I have a 1250 and it does not do that great with 4 ohm loads such as the AR9s. Doesn't make it a bad amp. It just wasn't designed with that type of performance in mind.
Are you guys REALLY listening at 200WPC?