Bi-amping overkill?

If your imaging and definition is fine, the only issue is whether your bass response is flat. That is for you to determine and the Rives site, as well as the realtraps site, offer tools to test that. If you need it, the PARC is a superb device for bass corrections.
http://www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/883/index.html

Kal

If you speakers have the headroom to play loud without distortion then bi-amp makes a big different. My friend installed a second Mark Levinson 333 to drive his B&W 801Ns and never look back. Bi-amp makes a hugh different in terms of dynamic and loud passage. Before bi-amp, both dynamic and loud passage sounded strained with 801Ns, perhaps we could yield the same results with a 600WPC amp. Happy listening.

Kal...Good job on the PARC review. Stuff I have read about the PARC led me to become interested in active room equalization (passive treatments being impossible for reasons mentioned in the review).

I agree that 24% of audiophiles should plunk down their $2800 for a PARC. However, for the 76% rest of us, where the cost is a bit high, and/or there are more than two channels to deal with, the device that I recommend, the Behringer DEQ2496, does a great job. Costing about 1/8 as much (including a $70 mic) it is vastly more flexible than the PARC, and includes a spectrum analyzer that, by itself, is worth the price. It is digital, which is good if your input can be digital. The A/D and D/A converters are well-regarded modules, and whether or not they degrade sound is something that each listener must decide for themselves. Even the 24% people who are on track for a PARC would be well advised to get the DEQ2496 first and play around with it to better understand their room problems and what can be done about them. Even if you go on to insert a PARC the DEQ2496 continues to be useful as a spectrum analyzer. Wouldn't you like to know the exact sonic effect of the Christmas tree, with and without ornaments? :-)

I suspect you will enjoy an improvement. First the the eq will probably correct the largest abberations. Secondly the "top" amp which provides the power for the frequencies that our ears are most sensitive to and will probably need the least manipulation will not be "corrupted" by the eq, and because this less demanding load will probably be riding in class A longer it may further enhance the sound. BTW, I don't necessarily believe that the eq actually corrupts anything, but, there is a vaid argument that suggests that amalgamting the primary first sound with the corrected reflective sound introduces a new perhaps more disruptive distortion. I have neither the knowlege of the experience to settle that argument. That most rooms suffer their greatest abberations in the lower frequencies seems to be universaly accepted. Furthermore it seems to be just as accepted that due to the nature of lower frequencies it would be difficult to seperate the primary sounds from the secondary reflected ones, so the net sound should benefit from eq manipulation. All in all, I suspect the compromise in cabling will be worth it.