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

@knotscott - yours is probably the only legit answer for not investigating active more thoroughly.  I get that once invested downa path, its difficult to change.

@unsound - comment about passive crossovers having "implmentations to compensate" for driver anomalies sounds like you think active crossovers cannot offer the same or better "compensations".  Actually this is one of the primary arguments FOR active, its much beeter to solve all these issues before the amplifier, not after.  

Why no comment about all the wire and passive components between the amplifier and driver ?   This seems to be the elephant in the room doesnt it? .  

@lonemountain

Why no comment about all the wire and passive components between the amplifier and driver ? ...

I’ll take a stab, but can only speak for myself and guess on behalf of others. If you own a pair of speakers that you love, or simply won’t part with, that have passive crossovers, removing the passive crossovers is likely not an option, so contemplating the amount of wire in the crossovers is likely just a moot point.

@knotscott 

Well thanks for taking a stab- I was thinking more of @unsound than you, as he made the comment about passive crossovers compensating for drier irregularities. But regarding youor comment, yes-its hard to not agree with you!  I agree it is IS difficult to come up with a good clean electronic crossover that's not digital, and then most of those are low end pro units (Behringer, etc) that i wouldnt put in any hi fi rig. I think we'll see more of them in the future though.   .  

@lonemountain, Perhaps you might want to reread my posts.Typical off the shelf active crossovers traditionally have not offered such compensation. The active crossover manufacturers would have had to know in advance what specific speaker parameters were to be considered. The possible variables would be nigh well infinite. As I previously posted; with DSP (and with appropriate measurements) post corrections become a much more practical proposition.

Bi-amping can be a bit complex, but let me explain it in a simple way for you:

Think of your speakers like a team of players in a sports game, and each player has a specific role to play. The internal crossover in your speakers acts like a coach, telling each player what they should do.

Now, in a regular setup (single-amp), one coach is in charge of both teams (high and low frequencies). But in bi-amping, you have two coaches, each specializing in their own team. Here's why people do it:

1. Better Control: With two coaches, you can give more specific instructions to each player. This can make the players (your speakers) perform better because they're not confused by mixed signals.

2. Less Interference: Sometimes, when both teams are listening to the same coach, they might argue or interfere with each other. Having separate coaches can reduce this interference.

3. Power Distribution: If one team needs more power (let's say the low frequencies), you can give them a stronger coach (amp) to handle it, while the other team gets a different coach for their needs.

However, the naysayers have a point too:

1. Speaker Design: Some speakers are designed with internal crossovers that work really well. In such cases, adding external crossovers and extra amps might not make a big difference, and it could even be a waste of resources.

2. Complexity: Bi-amping can be tricky to set up correctly. If you're not careful, you might not get the expected benefits, and it can get expensive with extra amps and cables.

So, it's like having two coaches for your team – it can be beneficial if done right, but not always necessary. It depends on your speakers and your preferences. If you're unsure, you can start with a regular setup and see if you're happy with the sound. If you feel something is missing, then you can explore bi-amping later.