Am I wasting money on the theory of Bi-amping?

As a long time audiophile I'm finally able to bi-amp my setup. I'm using two identical amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration. 

Now me not fully understanding all of the ins/outs of internal speaker crossovers and what not. I've read quite a few people tell me that bi-amping like I'm doing whether it's vertical or horizontal bi-amping is a waste since there's really not a improvement because of how speaker manufacturers design the internal crossovers. 

Can anyone explain to a third grader how it's beneficial or if the naysayers are correct in the statement?


I have been tri-amping for years and years.  Just changed out the ARC amps for four Pass amps.  Two X260.8 mono blocks and two XA30.8 stereo amps.

Out of the pre-amp into a Marchand electronic x-over and to the amps.  The x260.8(s) run the woofers.  The XA30.8(s) run the mids and the tweets.

The Hartley Reference has no internal x-overs and 3 sets of connections on each speaker.  Personally I think it sounds tremendous, but of course I do...its mine.



If done right, bi or even tri amping is the way to go.  But I repeat if done right. If you have ever been to a large concert or even board meetings are always bi or tri amped. But as others have said, it’s not as simple as plugging speakers into two different amps.

All the best.

I vertically bi-amp my system. Two AGD Tempo stereo amps, each driving a Fyne F1-8. I compared this to using a single Tempo and there is no question that bi-amping here was a big improvement - the same kind of improvement you would get from going from a stereo amp to mono blocks. But when I compared this vertical bi-amp setup to using one channel of each Tempo the improvement was not as distinct. My 2¢.

I have never tried bi-amping my system. I have noticed that many of the very high end speaker manufacturers do not have speaker post for bi-amping. If companies like Wilson, and Magico are not allowing this, can we tell the difference.

Post removed