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

@unsound - You have a point there about active outboard crossovers, and there are very few available. Most active loudspeakers have a purpose built electronic crossover designed specifically for their speaker within their internal or external amps just like passive ones do. Outboard is not where you find most active loudspeaker’s crossover. It’s usually built into the same circuit board as the amps themselves. Its easy to implement the same level of quality throughout the entire signal path.

I think my point was you presented this as "passive crossover advantage is compensation built in" while that is certainly not what I have seen across a long period of time. Im not saying it doesn’t exist, but the typical passive crossover is a simple, passive device that cannot be adjusted and has no "processing". Maybe EQ? Is that what you mean by compensation?

Active is much more likely to include additional controls such as phase controls and individual [band specific] level controls to calibrate the drive units to work as seamlessly together as possible. This is the case with the brand I work with, ATC, and multiple other studio/home speaker companies. I have seen some companies offer full-on EQ within some of their control sets, in both analog and digital form, so a user can tailor a speaker to their liking. Now we are seeing a new wave of loudspeakers with room correction and/or adjustment software within their internal crossovers. Such companies are Genelec, Kii and Dutch and Dutch. This level of control or adjustment is not available in a passive crossover. This means that some common issues a designer chooses to address cannot be accounted for in passive crossover.

By the way, I am NOT advocating that passive speakers should be torn apart and modified- this is far too difficult for most of us to actually pull off without a lot of information that tells us exactly what to do. I am speaking about an active system designed as active by the manufacturer from the beginning with all the parts supplied vs a passive system of the same type designed as passive with all its needed parts. ATC does both active and passive so perhaps I am able to contrast these two ideas without getting lost in gear/brand/type differences.

Probably been mentioned, I didn’t read, too many replies.

Bi-amping with matching amps is of no audible value.

You could Bi-Wire (if that is what the speakers are designed for), that is a different concept: use 1 cable construction for mids and highs; use different cable construction for lows.

Bi-amp is to use what you think is a better sounding amp for mids and highs, needing less power than bass. And use a different amp, perhaps less delicate, but more powerful for the power hungry bass.

You could even mix tubes for the mids and highs and a SS brute for the woofers. Think of self-powered sub-woofers, they typically use SS brutes, perhaps class D to avoid heat while delivering substantial power, while the primary speakers are driven by a ’better’ amp, often tubes.

@lonemoutain, I think we are seeing the same thing from a different angle. The OP seeemed to suggest that he was considering biamping his speakers that have passive cross-overs already included, not active loudspeakers, as that would probably be moot.

 Acitve loudspeakers have existed for some time now, though they seem to be more prevalent in the pro sound market than in the home audiophile market. Though there has been more recent growth in available active speakers geared towards the home market, What you have stated regarding active speakers and true DIY projects are certainly true. But I think that for the home market, speakers with passive crossovers have traditionally domiinated the market place.

Passive speakers can be designed with equaization and/or with compensation for driver irregularities, impedance smoothing, containment rolloff, time and phase corrections with traditional passive parts. I'm not suggesting that this built in compensation is typically user adjustable. Most traditional off the shelf active crossovers only give a number frequency bands for drivers and slope options. Newer digital crossovers offer much more customization.

@elliottbnewcombjr , I had the courtsey of reading the other posts, including yours before jumping in with mine.

Experience has led many away from mixing amplifiers as the passive crossovers will still allow bleed from the amplifers into the other side of the crossover region. The effect of which will vary with the slope of the crossovers used. I think most have concluded that using identical amps advantageous. Most of the modern active loudspeakers are not using tubes in the mix.

Though biwiring typically shouldn't be confused with biamping, mixing cables might have similar effects.

Erratum :  …”containment rolloff,…” would be most typically done with equalization rather than the suggested …”with passive parts.”…