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


As a long time audiophile I'm finally able to bi-amp my setup. I'm using two identical amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration. 
 

Now me not fully understanding all of the ins/outs of internal speaker crossovers and what not. I've read quite a few people tell me that bi-amping like I'm doing whether it's vertical or horizontal bi-amping is a waste since there's really not a improvement because of how speaker manufacturers design the internal crossovers. 
 

Can anyone explain to a third grader how it's beneficial or if the naysayers are correct in the statement?

ibisghost

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.