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

YES....Good Integrateds have come a long way in the last 10 years.....Also a real good  tube pre amp with an upscale class D amp is a beautiful combo.....not cheap though...but great for MUSIC enjoyment.

Big difference in a bridge tied load used in mono versus bi-amping. True bi-amping is worth the effort if you equipment has hi-lo and A-B outputs. 

I’ve done a lot of bi-amping, tri-amping, all the way up to 5 way active speakers. It’s all a pain in the ass. If you’re not building your own speakers, it does seem fair enough to call it a waste of time, energy, and effort to bi-amp a speaker that already has a well designed passive crossover built in. However, you might actually like the results, so if you don’t mind the effort and expense of exploring and experimenting, then I would recommend giving it a try. My own experiences with passive bi-amping showed no obvious benefit. I was using solid state amps with plenty of current capacity, and the speakers were fairly sensitive and efficient, so that may have a lot to do with it. If you’re building your own speakers, making a passive crossover network can be a total pain, add up to a lot of expense. You can get active crossovers that include all kinds of shelving, notch filters, parametric EQ, time alignment, etc., assuming you’re willing to go digital. You can also hand pick your drivers so they don’t have any issues in the passband, and get what I think are some pretty stunning results. The active crossover lets you experiment quickly. I have read that a passive crossover never sounds highly transparent, although I think good ones are transparent enough in typical listening rooms. This is one case where people were easily able to tell the insertion of a passive network vs a pure feed in a double blind test. The testers were unable to make a passive network pure enough sounding to fool anybody. A digital active crossover could fool people. Whatever that’s worth, it does seem that for the ultimate in sound fidelity, a digital active crossover has more upside potential. Doesn’t mean you’ll like it better. Just means you’ll have a harder time telling it apart from a pure feed.

In case you’re wondering how these tests were done, they used headphones, split a signal into a low pass and a high pass, and the recombined them to a full bandwidth signal that went to the headphones. The listeners could compare direct feed to the split and re-combined feed. This allowed the passive networks to be at their best, feeding in to very stable, pure resistive loads. (I actually can’t remember if these were entirely passive or included some op-amps to make them work better. If they included op-amps some might be tempted to say that people were hearing the op-amps, but I doubt that. In any case, they were analog, line level networks.) People could easily hear the difference, even though considerable effort was made to optimize the analog networks. A passive network in a speaker is more of a mess, feeding into multiple speaker drivers with all their impedance complexities. It was interesting to me that even though the digital crossover had to do A/D D/A conversion steps, people still noticed no obvious degradation in signal. It may have to do with the people chosen for the test. Over and over I get the impression that audiophiles are particularly sensitive to things that most people don’t notice, but also peculiarly unsensitive, or at least unconcerned with things that most people can easily hear as problems. Audiophiles have learned not just to listen, but to curate particular tastes. It's not just about what is identifiably accurate or inaccurate, but what comes across as most natural and pleasing.

@asctim wrote:

... It was interesting to me that even though the digital crossover had to do A/D D/A conversion steps, people still noticed no obvious degradation in signal. It may have to do with the people chosen for the test. Over and over I get the impression that audiophiles are particularly sensitive to things that most people don’t notice, but also peculiarly unsensitive, or at least unconcerned with things that most people can easily hear as problems. Audiophiles have learned not just to listen, but to curate particular tastes.

This. 

NO! Because it is NEVER the THEORY that is the waste of money. It is always the application / implementation of the flawed theory that is a waste of money. Notice that all these other posters with multi-paragraph theories aren't wasting one dime of their money with their theories.