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?



There are pros and cons with active, and with passive crossovers. In a perfect world, active crossovers have some distinct benefits....especially if starting up from scratch, but many of us get to the bi-amp situation once we’re already well invested in our current systems. Sometimes it just not feasible to backtrack to square one.

@unsound reiterated some of the benefits and situation need for passive crossovers. There are certainly active crossovers that can perform some, if not all, of the compensation requirements of some drivers, but what if you already own a really nice pair of speakers that you love and that have excellent, well designed passive crossovers with top shelf parts, and you want to dip your toe into bi-amping? I’d think even a serious audio buff would hesitate before proceeding to gut the crossovers from a pair of Magico, Wilson, or Sonus Faber speakers so they can experiment with active crossovers. Not everyone has the knowledge, expertise, or the will power to actually make such a bold many cases it’s simply not wise to risk the destruction of a wonderful pair of speakers to pursue an active crossover. If a great pair of speakers sounds good with passive crossovers in a single amp situation, they’re very likely to sound even better with a good bi-amp setup, even with the passive crossovers.

Passive or active bi-amping should not be undertaken without first asking the manufacturer’s advice.

See article below:


Making the Case for Active Crossovers vs. Passive

@knotscott - yours is probably the only legit answer for not investigating active more thoroughly.  I get that once invested downa path, its difficult to change.

@unsound - comment about passive crossovers having "implmentations to compensate" for driver anomalies sounds like you think active crossovers cannot offer the same or better "compensations".  Actually this is one of the primary arguments FOR active, its much beeter to solve all these issues before the amplifier, not after.  

Why no comment about all the wire and passive components between the amplifier and driver ?   This seems to be the elephant in the room doesnt it? .  




Why no comment about all the wire and passive components between the amplifier and driver ? ...

I’ll take a stab, but can only speak for myself and guess on behalf of others. If you own a pair of speakers that you love, or simply won’t part with, that have passive crossovers, removing the passive crossovers is likely not an option, so contemplating the amount of wire in the crossovers is likely just a moot point.




Well thanks for taking a stab- I was thinking more of @unsound than you, as he made the comment about passive crossovers compensating for drier irregularities. But regarding youor comment, yes-its hard to not agree with you!  I agree it is IS difficult to come up with a good clean electronic crossover that's not digital, and then most of those are low end pro units (Behringer, etc) that i wouldnt put in any hi fi rig. I think we'll see more of them in the future though.   .