There are two approaches to bi-amping: passive bi-amping (what Audiolib describes - pull the jumpers off the two sets of binding posts and use two amps) and active bi-amping (when the crossovers are upstream of the amps and the signals coming from the amps go directly to speaker drivers with no crossovers in the path). Passive bi-amping is easy. Active bi-amping is a good deal more complex, typicall requiring the creation of the crossover networks and some "inside the speaker" re-wiring to bypass the factory crossovers.

I hope you find that most of us are in the habit of not attacking one another, just sharing ideas and experiences, sometimes passionately, sometimes not reaching the same conclusions – but even Outlaws can show respect!

Certainly there would be little point to having both a fully functional active crossover ahead of the amplification and passive filtering at the loudspeakers, but at least one or the other in almost every case.

While the active crossover method introduces a level of complexity and significantly increased expense for both an active crossover network and more channels of amplification, if the active crossover provides the frequency dividing, response shaping and time alignment needed by a particular arrangement of drivers, the direct connection of an amplifier output to each driver provides both better accuracy and power transfer than passive crossover components allow when they are between amplifier and driver.

Most of us are at the other end of the spectrum with a single channel of amplification per loudspeaker and two-way or three-way passive crossovers in our speaker enclosures. Our exposure to active crossover application is limited to the pre/pro or receiver that may separate and provide a mono or stereo signal for subwoofers.

My loudspeakers are three-way and have two sets of binding posts, one for lows and one for mids/highs. I have experimented with bi-wiring and split feed (no active crossover) bi-amplification and found no marked improvement over the usual common feed method. In my opinion finding little or no audible change was a testament to three, possibly four factors: the Outlaw amplification is of very high quality such that it drives a full range load just fine, splitting the frequency loads above the subwoofer frequencies was not an aid to amplifier performance; the speaker wire in use introduced no problems that were helped by carrying certain ranges of frequencies separately; the passive crossover components were still between the amplifier and drivers; the rest of the variables present, there are plenty from source material to listening environment, were such that they overshadowed any differences.

As mentioned elsewhere in this forum, “Your results may vary.” Let us know how things work out for you.

Thanks for the sentiment, bestbang. I have been a reader of the forum for quite a while now, and know what you say to be true, with only a few exceptions. Funny thing about this type of written discourse is that the perceived tone of a post may lie more in the perception of the reader, not necessarily as the writer intended. Sometimes, we look to be offended, due to a bad day, fight with wife, or just disagree with another's opinion, we find offense where none is intended. I will try to be careful to avoid any perceived malcontent in my postings.

I appreciate your welcoming me to the forum. Thanks for your input.