Is Bi - amping worth the trouble?

We need to pull this thread together into a general concensus, because I think we all agree true-biamping is the best. Have I got this right? Short of tri-amping, the best way to biamp is to remove the bass and midrange crossovers in the speaker, dedicate the best bass amp to the low frequencies, the best mids/highs amp to the upper frequencies. Then you need to buy an active crossover with independant frequency and level adjustments, between the preamp and amps. For someone who doesn't want to spend this kind of money, nor the listening time to compare various amps, the question still remains about just how noticable bi-wiring is with two identical stereo amps. Someone called this passive bi-amping. Then you just buy another amp, just like the one you already own, plus a y-connector and duplicate pairs of short speaker and long interconnect cables. Each stereo amp can sit right next to each speaker (just the LOOK of this is worth something). No volume settings nor optimizing of amps will be necessary. I have heard the benefits of running separate speaker cables to the highs and lows, even though any electrical engineer will tell me it only my imagination. And, I can hear EVEN MORE of the same benefits, when I run different amps in the same type of bi-wire configuration. Try it... it sounds more lively, more dynamic, more detailed. Maybe its the reduced intermodulation distortion, maybe its musical karma. I don't care, it works. My technical friend tells me that whether the crossover is before the amp or after, either way it still eliminates the current at those frequencies through the amp. The amps and the wires have less frequency bandwith to contend with.

Well, I'm certainly impressed. haven't done anything yet, but still given the level of informative thoughts and experiences that have presented themselves herein... I am way impressed. As said above, and with no attrmpt to have the last word or bring a hlat to this strem of thought, formulating or making cohesive the question to the responses, the answer thus far needs be dependant upon waht a person views as "trouble". If I may be so bold... and I will.

Apparently one does not escape subjectivity. Be it in practice or methodology. Equating the value or difference between two parts derives the sum of it. What is the level achieved? What is the effort involved? Was there even one summary dismissal of the project? I don't recall it. I do recall some explicit recounts of knowledgeable folks, passionate about audio who were satisfied, ultimately, with the end product. I recall unselfishly how many told of the areas to be aware of, the pitfalls and prerequisites, and the proceedures to reach a proper end with either path, be it active, or passive bi-amplification.

I get the overall feeling at this 'juncture' (if I can quote a former chief of staff), that it's a viable task. One that the results have outweighed the sweat and expense along the way. For me I am sold on the notion to fulfill both a desire and a dream. Though formerly struck near dumb by the avalanche of steps, and the coincidental expense of them to boot, I have recovered sufficiently to grasp the reins and once more move towards that end. (…can’t you just hear Ray Charles in the background softly doing America The beautiful?).

So I’d say just now the posts here say resoundingly, “You bet cha!” But there’s more to it than just buying a second amp and some more wires…. Perhaps. The keys being as I understand them thus far:

Matching the gain of both amps
Limiting amplifier bandwidth for dynamic improvement in the loudspeakers performance… given their particular applications.
Addressing the networks of the loudspeaker dependant upon the choice of an active bi-amping application.
Buying more peripherals.
Buying lots more peripherals.

….not a problem. I thought I was seeing a light at the end of the tunnel… then I thought it was a train. The light is much dimmer now. This tunnel has a curve in it! Fine. I’m good. I’m also looking forward to the whole shooting match. Because from what I’ve seen here, bi-amping is worth it. For regardless the results, my inventory of equipment willhave increased and there will be lots more to play with from time to time. How can you not see that as a plus? (…well there’s that buying it all, part, I guess).

FWIW, you cannot in fact say there is a "consensus" here or in audio in general that bi-amping is simply superior (active or passive).

Bi-amping has one theoretical disadvantage: the loss of coherency due to mixing two different amps with their unique sonic characteristics. There will always be freq-overlap of the two amps with any crossover. This is assuming different amps top and bottom, but as has been pointing out, that's the only way to do it unless you're just down on power.

I'm not saying that bi-amping isn't better in nine out of ten situations (though I'm not saying it is), just that you can't make a blanket that it's always better with this potential/theoretical weakness (which many feel is very real in practice).

Let me try and put some order (into my thoughts at least) on biamping:

As seen before there are various methods for biamping with different results:

1:Dual-amp biwire (nice new term) which is achieved without any freq, limitation on both amps, both amps "amplify the full signal" These method uses forcibly the speakers internal Xover.

1a-Dual-amp biwire with same amps being paralel or series would be just more of the same, yes more power supplies so also more dynamics and more power, same sound. If it is two tube amps the bass will still be a little "undefiend" if its two SS amps the top will be "grainy" (you can change these adjectives as you please...undefined and grainy are just MHO)
*No gain (volume) matching devices needed.
*Use speakers internal Xover

1b-Dual-amp biwire with different amps where you get the sonic benefits and performance of different type of amps; for example: Tubes on top and SS on bottom.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed.
*Use speakers internal Xover

2- Passive Simple Biamping, Lets agree that for this you need to limit the freq. going into at least one amp.
*These method would still need the speakers internal XOver
* High pass, to avoid this amp to overwork with bass freq.
*Low pass avoiding mid and higher freq. on the amp. (Big SS amps don’t really need to get rid of highs)
*These Xover should be Passive at Line Level before the amps.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed

3- Active Simple Biamping, Limit freq. going into at least one amp.
If you have satellite monitors and a subwoofer, this could be active simple biamping, since you are using a dedicated bass amp inside the subwoofer. You can also use an EQ for the bass amp which would act like low pass and add a little punch and extension on the lower freq. (nice!)
*These method would still need the speakers internal Xover (because it is simple)
* High pass, to avoid this amp to overwork with bass freq.
*Low pass avoiding mid and higher freq. on the amp.
*These Xover should be Active at Line Level before the amps. Gain (volume) matching devices are usually built into the active Xover.

4- Extreme Biamping, Triamping etc.
*You will need one amp for each driver and there should be only wire going from each amp to the driver.
(An exemption to the rule could be tweeter which could have a passive Xover between amp and tweeter.)
*For this method you cannot use the Speakers internal Xover, It would not be recommended to use a “designer” speaker since there would really be no point to rip out the original “designer” Xover to play around. This method would be recommended for DIY speakers such as Lowther drivers with bass, Horn systems, Professional PA systems etc.
* Line level Xover can be Passive, Active or a Mix of them depending on Amp-Driver combination used.
*Gain (volume) matching devices needed

Jsadurni
...got it. thanks. Immense help. I am quite looking forward to it all.