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

Bi-amping in a truly high-end system, that has already achieved the level of being highly resolving by virtue of the speakers, amps, and pre-amp is generally a waste of time and money in my experience. However, the one EXCEPTION I have experienced is when one particular amplification set-up may be great for the lows, but not so much for the mids and highs. Long story short, depending on the genres of music you listen to, and especially, if you listen to music with lots of acoustic instruments regardless of genre, you might find that a solid state amp is perfect for achieving tight, punchy low end, but not "gentle and sensitive" enough to correctly re-produce the subtle nuances of various acoustic instruments and vocals, where tube amp might do a better job. Of course there are other technical issues to be considered (ie, impedance mis-matches, etc), so the bottom line is, make certain you have a competent sales/technical rep who knows what they are doing....to go in the bi-amping direction creates issues that one generally never has to consider in a non-bi-amped set-up. Finally, this can become a frustrating (and expensive) situation if you fail to do adequate research concerning your existing system’s parameters.

It’s entirely system dependent , more often then nought by facing challenging speakers, 

I had TOTEM FORESTs in a prior system that are notorious hungrty power hogs .I drove them with a high-current 100 wpc integrated amplifier with mixed performance . WPC in isolation are meaningless , it’s grunt provided by amps that mattered,  

It was only when I introduced a matched stablemate 100 wpc high current power amp to drive the woofers, and designated the integrated amp on the mirsnge/ tweeters, did the FORESTs finally open up to their maximum.

Intuitively, the added costs of separate runsof quality speaker cables, another quslity build power cable, and quslity interconnects in addition to the power amp outlay itself, can be an influencing factor for some.fans, 

Experiment, yourself.is your clear pathway forward. 

I am considering bi-amping my apogee duetta 2 speakers, I think they are a good candidate for bi-amping. There is a lot of information on bi-amping apogee speakers, and they are set up for it also, with some changing of cables in the crossovers.

I guess since in this forum people want to call the bi wiring or some variation of that "biamping", we should at least call it "passive biamping" as per Elliots post. . BIamping - as taught in every audio book ever- is a term (like triamping) from years and years ago to describe an active crossover was in use and amps are driven [band limited] direct to the drivers. NO lossy passive elecronics between amp and driver. This is an important distinction as active biamping elevates performance radically. This slang term "passive baimping " I guess is in use but just confuses the issue needlessly, leading people astray in terms of understanding their own system and whats a worthwhile expense in upgrading it and what is not, The term used solo It implies that "passive biamping".achieves some of the same results as real [active] "biamping" and it doesn’t even come close. Talk to any competent transducer engineer and he or she will explain to you that passive biamping is a marketing term adapted to sell you more cable or more amplifiers.and offers questionable results. In passive biamping, you are throwing half the amp output away as the passive crossover filters that part of the amp output out. All the passive parts separating the driver from the amp remain. The inability to adjust driver phase remains. It improves nothing I can see, save the possibility that just more power could help some speakers sound better (as more power usually does that, most commonly improving bass dynamics). This more power benefit is the same when applied to a single amp system or a true active biamp system: more power usually = better low end.

The potential (and real) benefit of going to passive bi-amping is solely about power - as it is the only characteristic of the system being changed. In my case, I have speakers (passive bi-ample) whose sonic character I prefer. Likewise, I have an amplifier that pairs very well with these speakers. To get more output (and greater headroom) from this combination of speaker and amp, I need more power. I could solve this, obviously, by getting a larger amplifier. But a larger amplfier with the characteristics of my current amplifier would be orders of magnitude greater in cost. And I already have this amplifier. So the shorter, more sensible path is to simply add another, identical amplifier and vertically bi-amp. Move the amps near the speakers and get the additional benefit of significantly shorter speaker cables. If you like what you've got but think you may need more power, I say passively bi-amp away! For ref, I have had active bi- and tri-amped systems so I know very well what those benefits (and drawbacks) are.