What's better? 1 amp of 250wpc OR 2 amps of 135wpc each one?

I feel the that bi-amp is usually a great way to improve on a system's sound. If you like the way the A300 sounds it seems that a natural way to go is to passive bi-amp. If you are sure you do not need the extra voltage headroom of the 250 wpc amp, then I would definatly go with the A3CR. Chris

I've seen threads from a number of people use the very config you descibe and are very happy.

what are you expecting from the biamp? if the a300 is loud enough...where are you going with this? i think you will get some sonic benefits for doing this...but not unbeleivable. i have used hafler amps in a horizontal biamp (as they were same 91 series but different output but having adjustable gain) not that much better but you could adjust for room problems with the gain (boomy bass was fixed by lowering the volume to the woofers). i have done vertical with anthem amp ones which helped greatly on inefficient speakers.

if it were me. i would look at upgrading another part of your system to give you a bigger bang. source; cables etc. try a tube amp maybe if everything else is perfect.

my thoughts anyway. good luck

Since you would be passively bi-amping, your gains would not be nearly as great as if you were actively bi-amping. How effective this would be would depend on the crossover frequency of the speakers being used and how the power was divided. If the speakers are HIGHLY reactive / tough to drive in one specific frequency range or at both ends of the spectrum, breaking up the power between them could be advantageous as compared to using one bigger amp.

Knowing exactly what speakers you were using might be a BIG help. Sean
>

Thanks all for your responses.
Jvr and Sean, I want to upgrade the amplification section due to I feel that my speakers (Magnepan 1.6qr, which are very inefficient)are not being driven with "ease", even I think the a300 is loud enough, the sound from the speakers is thin, so I thoght that the cause of this could be that the current was insufficient. I know that I would have more improvements with active biamping but I don't know if I can do it with an integrated amplifier. If this helps, my little system consists of: MF a300, MF A3CD, Analysis Plus Oval 12 spk cables (biwire set), Analysis Plus Oval copper interconnects, monster HTS2000. Thanks again for your responses...jorge.

In MY opinion, i can see how you think the system is "thin". From my experience, ALL of your components are on the "lean" side. While MF gear is not "harsh" or "bright", it is definitely NOT warm, full or "powerful" when talking about tonal balance. I would call it "quick and clean" but lacking in "oomph" or "body". While my findings with Analysis Plus speaker cables tend to go against the grain, i found them to be VERY lean sounding with a bright, tizzy treble. This was using a set of the Oval 9's that had WAY over 500 hours of time on them. I can't comment on their interconnects, as i've never tried them. Your speakers, as you probably know, are not known for exhibiting great amounts of "warmth", "body" or "weight". On top of this, they can be more difficult to set up in a room due to their radiation pattern. As such, the things that take the biggest hit in the nose when not perfectly dialed in are the soundstage, imaging and bottom end.

With all of that in mind, i don't think that adding another amp is going to give you what you want, especially if it is another MF ( regardless of power rating ). This would only give you more power to avoid "stress" or "strain", but would NOT correct the tonal imbalance problem. The REAL benefits of bi-amping come from using an active crossover and bypassing the passive crossover of the speaker. This means that you would need both an amp, an active crossover, modifications to your speakers and a LOT of dialing in.

If your basically happy with everything but want more "weight" to the sound and would like to ease some of the strain from your amp, i would think about adding a powered subwoofer. Not only will this give the music more impact and foundation, by removing bass duties from the Maggies you will free up more power for the upper bass, mids and highs. This approach may "kill two birds with one stone" ( sorry PETA fans ).

Other than that, you might have to re-assess your system on a component by component basis and see where the weak links are and what your overall system goals consist of. Sorry if this sounds kind of harsh, but i'm trying to offer "honest" advice. Others may or may not agree. I hope you take this in the light that i'm offering my comments. Best wishes... Sean
>

Sean, your comments does not bother me, in fact, I think you probably are right. I was already thinking of adding a powered subwoofer (for instance a rel strata III). Yes, I think the upper bass is weak currently, but I do not understand how is that by adding a sub it will "remove bass duties from the Maggies and I will free up more power for the upper bass, mids and highs"?. My understanding is that the subwoofer simply will "see" frequencies (low) that the Maggies do not "see", so the speakers will do the same (will have the same current or power from the amp) with or without the subwoofer (please correct me if I'm wrong), so I do not understand how is that by adding the sub it will ease some of the strain from the amp. Could you please explain me why. Obviously I'm not an expert on this. Thanks for the input ..jorge.

The Maggies will not be trying to reproduce the bottom end if and only if you use a crossover to remove the bass from them and pass that range of frequencies to the subwoofer. Some of the powered subwoofers have a crossover built into them and you can get the upper frequencies to the maggies using the high pass out feature. I would typically be leary of the sound quality from a crossover inside a subwoofer but it could be a starting point to see if that is the solution and then purchase a high quality crossover later.