Someone w Experience Active/Passive Biamping

I just called Magnepan and asked about bi-amping the 1.6's and the 3.6s because I have exactly the same thing in mind. I was disappointed.
1) According to Magnepan, the 1.6's CANNOT be bi-amped, and they should NOT be bi-amped because it will do strange unintended things. The two sets of inputs actually go to the same place, and that in fact on the 1.6's the two inputs are mainly cosmetic for people who want to bi-wire and think they are getting some benefit from it, when really it does nothing because of the way the 1.6's are set up inside. Sorry about that. I was hoping to get 1.6's for myself and bi-amp them. :(
2) However, the 3.6's can be bi-amped no problem - they are a different animal.
Lesson learned: call the experts and ask first.

I'd go with an active line level crossover.
Apart from a higher damping factor and increased efficiency it gets rid of the horrible effects that come with having inductors and caps in the audio path!
Inductors introduce phase shifts and eat power
and caps smear the signal.
Passive components are best avoided, they are always detrimental to the signal apart from straight wire of sufficient thickness.

As any Linn person will tell you, active multi-amping is the way to go. However, this presumes that the speaker is designed to be upgraded in this fashion. Many speakers are designed as a total package, drivers are matched to the crossover as it is presently implemented. If you start messing around with the crossover, the speaker may behave in a way that the designer hadn't anticipated. Unless you've asked the manufacturer whether the speaker can be used with an active crossover, it's a leap of faith whether it will improve its performance. I would have regard to Eldartford's comments.

I am (1)..a strong advocate of biamping, and (2) owner of MG1.6 speakers. In spite of this I suggest that biamping the MG1.6, between the woofer and tweeter panels may not be the best thing to do. (Biamping between a subwoofer and the MG1.6, what I do, is fine).

My reasons are as follows:

1. The Magneplanar drivers are not like ordinary cone drivers, and their frequency response is "taylored" by tension and weights. The crossover uses different low rolloff and high pass frequencies, and slopes.

2. The passive crossover is very simple, and easily upgraded. The Solen capacitors don't need to be replaced. An air core inductor should replace the single iron core inductor of the stock crossover.

3. Hooking up a tweeter directly to a power amp (without a capacitor) makes me nervious. Power amps have a way of going "thump" or "buzzzz". Hopefully the fuse will save your ass. You didn't bypass the fuse, did you?

4. Cost and complexity.

As per Tom above -- by far better.
I'd add the possibility to use passive line-level xovers too.
The Behringer is very versatile (& presently on special $230 offer, too). While its sound may not match a top-notch DSP, the sonic results of active bi-amping will far outweigh the losses incurred through spkr level filters & full-range driven amps. Also consider that the 2496 is a keeper as a tool, too: for diying filters & (why not) spkrs systems.
IMHO, etc, cheers

Biamping with an active crossover is a better solution.

Low power line level signals in the active crossover are much more easily and elegantly handled, than trying to handle them in a high-power element like in the speaker.

Also, if you run each channel of the amp full range, and then filter the signals at the speakers, some of the advantages of biamping are negated. If you use the active filters, each amp channel is only required to amplify a portion of the signal, and thus has more power and headroom available for each driver. And each driver can be driven directly by the amp(s).

I'd strongly consider using the active biamping arrangement, even though it needs more cables, and does increase the signal path length and complexity, it is a job better done at the line level.

IHMO.