Willi, I have experimented in this area, let me first say I am not an expert, but just a curious audiophile. I own 2 Musical Fidelity X-AS100 amps, 100w each, they have mono/stereo switch and input/output RCA connectors, this alllows for very flexible system! Most gurus prefer monoblock set-up as this is more balanced use of amps, one mono amp for each speaker, Stereophile mag Class A amps has several monoblock designs, also as you know high freq drivers need lower power than low freq drivers, so monoblock is most efficient use of total amp power. Bi-amp using two stereo amps, one for high freq both speakers and one for low freq both speakers, wastes some power but offers further isolation of bass from treble, in theory giving lower distortion in treble. Most experts prefer monoblocks but both ways sound good, also you should have bi-wire capable speakers to take advantage of either method, Shayner gives good summary of reasons to bi-wire and bi-amp....regards Sam
Bi-amping versus Mono-blocks
Wondering if there are varying positive reasons for bi-amping versus mono-blocks. I know that bi-amping is usually hooked up horizontally (one amp for lows and one amp for lows) and that mono-blocks are one amp per each speaker. I also know that if you want to mix amps with a SS amp on the low end and Tube on the high end, you bi-amp. My question is ............ which method is best for an amp being able to drive the speakers (least pull on the amp)? Is it easier/better for an amp to handle the complete frequency range of only one speaker .... or better for an amp to cover only a portion (low frequencies or high frequencies) of the frequencies of two speakers? Does each have it's place because of certain reasons/circumstances? Thanks for any input.