Anyone ever tried 2x100Watt Bi-Amp Vs 200 Watt

Wow. Lots of opinions. IMHO, a good 200w is superior in terms of power availability. The reason is that most of the power is utilized in the bass and with 2x100, the woofer/LF will still see only 100w. One can argue that bass stress will not affect the HF with 2x100 but by doubling the power to the LF, such stress is minimized.

Also, bridging is different from 2x100 and requires a phase inversion device. The result is usually more than 200w but places limitations on the impedance sensitivity.

Biamping was very effective back in the days when power amps had high IM distortion, and watts were expensive. The only valid reason to biamp today is to get rid of the passive crossover.

I believe I misunderstood your question. For some reason I thought you were asking about vertical bi-amping - 100w for mid/HF drivers and 100w for LF drivers, not horizontal bi-amping - one amp per speaker. So please disregard my initial post.

agree with Kr4. Depending on what you want to achieve, if you are trying to increase SPL then you need to feed it more power. If you are after better sound, vertical bi-amp might give you that.

Done both bridging (Plinius SA100's) and passive biamping. In the latter, I used Monarchy SE100's above 90 Hz and an old Mission 777 (100W) for bass, along with a custom attenuator to accommodate gain differences. This setup took advantage of both amps strengths and fit my budget at the time. I'm not sure a dozen Monarchy's stacked in parallel could have matched the Mission's bass, despite the identical rating. A higher xover would make matching more difficult with amps that aren't identical.

A friend matched a Coda System 100 for bass with Manley Snappers (100W tube) and there was only a slight gain difference.

The other thing that should be considered is that input impedance drops with passive biamping. With a few exceptions, that should not be a problem.