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

Good advice...on both accounts. :-)

I have Mirage OMD-28s. Absolutely love them, and now I need amps that will make them sing. Manufacturer recommends tri-amping, but as you have said...no concensus. Just trying to be better informed for my decision.

Thanks!

@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?

I understand there will be no consensus...just looking for any technical info to help in my decision. The reviews I've read, along with people here on audiogon that own them, all say 200 watts per channel minimum, as the dual 8" bass drivers really need power to shine. My current amp (Marantz SR7001) is only 110w per channel (bi-amped). It works fine, and sounds good...but its a receiver, and I want to really setup a nice system with separate processor, and amps.

I'm considering the following (each setup costs around $2,400):
1. 2 class d monoblocks from seymour av, or wyred4sound
2. The bi-amped would likely be a class d wyred4sound 7 channel amp, with fronts bi-amped, and the rest for a 5.1
3. The tri-amped would be 2 of the new Marantz MM7055s. 10 total discrete channels, 6 for the fronts, 1 each for center and surrounds.

I'm just torn as there is so much conflicting information, and I don't want to upgrade this stuff for a long time. Anyways, all info is much appreciated. Even that which I don't want to hear. :-)

@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

So thanks for all the great advice. This is what I was looking for. Some solid technical reasons for, or against, multi-amping. It seems like the benefits are minimal at best, and that good quality monoblocks are probably the best way to go to maximize sound quality, control, and output.

I know people have asked about this before, and I appreciate your patience. Thanks a ton!

Now to find the best monoblocks for these bad boys. Oh boy. :-D

I am absolutely going to try it. A friend has 4 class D monoblocks that I am gonna borrow to try in both single and bi-amped methods, to see if we can hear any difference. But even he believes that high quality monoblocks, bi-wired, are the better way for me to go. :-)

Hey thanks for the input @Poprhetor, I haven't had the chance to do much testing yet, as I am a snowbird and away from my main system for the winter. :-(

Before I left, I did try single amping and passive bi-amping from my Marantz. I felt there was a clear improvement when bi-amping. I know that is blasphemy on this forum...but it was a very clear improvement to me. I will definitely bi-amp whenever I have the opportunity.