Monoblocks, passive bi-amped or passive tri-amped?

@6650c: Yes, passive bi-amped...not active x-over. They get the entire signal, but only have to power part of the drivers, instead of all of them.

The tweeter likely doesn't need it's own amp...probably would be wasted. Good point. It only needs a few watts. The Bass definitely needs the power, and now that you mention it...taking the mid/tweeter away wouldn't do a ton. So the lower powered Marantz is likely out. I am still wondering then on the bi-amped for mid/tweet and bass. I would think that not having to split the power between 3 driver sections would benefit them.

Thoughts?

@Elizabeth: I'm gonna make a big assumption here...so don't hurt me. :-) I'm assuming that Mirage built them this way, and recommends multi-amping, as a means to better sound from the speaker. I've read the same of B&W speakers. Maybe it is a bad assumption...I just want to get the best sound out of them.

I look at it like a multi-processor PC...a PC with multiple processors, in general, runs better than a single processing PC. Just an analogy...not trying to get into that debate. Or a 12 cylinder engine as opposed to a 4...12 will perform magnificently comparatively. Does that make sense? Sometime I don't explain well. :-D

Bi-amping, whether you advocate it or not, is one of the largest wastes of Internet bandwidth. It is argued and discussed incessantly and each side of the argument never convinces the other. Even active bi-amping is disputable these days.

In this case, if the OP really believes his speakers are underpowered, I would advise him to buy a good 200wpc amp with the emphasis on good.