Anyone ever tried 2x100Watt Bi-Amp Vs 200 Watt

given that you are considering a decent amp, and not one from walmart--

My advice is that if your speakers have only one set of terminals on the back to go with the 200w amp instead of the 2x100w. you have a greater chance of degrading the signal or introducing a problem than to recieve benefit. if your speakers have two sets of terminals (that are bridged, you remove the bridge when you bi-wire/biamp) then two amps would increase your chances for a non-negative result. giving you greater control over how much amp goes to the highs and what goes to the lows... Don't forget that many amps are bridgable, so you could wire two 100w amp channels to the same speaker to get 200w that way too.

Wow. Lots of opinions. IMHO, a good 200w is superior in terms of power availability. The reason is that most of the power is utilized in the bass and with 2x100, the woofer/LF will still see only 100w. One can argue that bass stress will not affect the HF with 2x100 but by doubling the power to the LF, such stress is minimized.

Also, bridging is different from 2x100 and requires a phase inversion device. The result is usually more than 200w but places limitations on the impedance sensitivity.

Biamping was very effective back in the days when power amps had high IM distortion, and watts were expensive. The only valid reason to biamp today is to get rid of the passive crossover.

I believe I misunderstood your question. For some reason I thought you were asking about vertical bi-amping - 100w for mid/HF drivers and 100w for LF drivers, not horizontal bi-amping - one amp per speaker. So please disregard my initial post.

agree with Kr4. Depending on what you want to achieve, if you are trying to increase SPL then you need to feed it more power. If you are after better sound, vertical bi-amp might give you that.