Monoblocks, passive bi-amped or passive tri-amped?

Isn't most of the power demanded by the woofer? So, adding a second amp for the mids and high doesn't really take much load away from the woofer amp.(assuming a three way design) I agree that adding a second identical amp does not really double the usable power available to the speaker. The tweeter amp mostly goes to waste.

What does "passive" mean? To me, passive indicates something that is not powered. Do you mean you are not using an active x-over and letting the amps get all the signal?

I understand there will be no consensus...just looking for any technical info to help in my decision. The reviews I've read, along with people here on audiogon that own them, all say 200 watts per channel minimum, as the dual 8" bass drivers really need power to shine. My current amp (Marantz SR7001) is only 110w per channel (bi-amped). It works fine, and sounds good...but its a receiver, and I want to really setup a nice system with separate processor, and amps.

I'm considering the following (each setup costs around $2,400):
1. 2 class d monoblocks from seymour av, or wyred4sound
2. The bi-amped would likely be a class d wyred4sound 7 channel amp, with fronts bi-amped, and the rest for a 5.1
3. The tri-amped would be 2 of the new Marantz MM7055s. 10 total discrete channels, 6 for the fronts, 1 each for center and surrounds.

I'm just torn as there is so much conflicting information, and I don't want to upgrade this stuff for a long time. Anyways, all info is much appreciated. Even that which I don't want to hear. :-)

Passive bi/tri amp means the amp is NOT getting only the frequencies the speaker driver needs. So each amp is amplifying all the frequencies aand the speaker has to throw away the energy that spaker does not actuall use, by heating up the parts of the crossover, OR, the speaker gets to use all those frequencies it can respond to, even if that messes up the overall frequency responses of the combined drivers.
I cannot personally understand the desire to bi amp or tri amp with the actual difficulties involved. The only way biamping makes sense is to use an active crossover to separate the frequencies before the amp.

@6650c: Yes, passive bi-amped...not active x-over. They get the entire signal, but only have to power part of the drivers, instead of all of them.

The tweeter likely doesn't need it's own amp...probably would be wasted. Good point. It only needs a few watts. The Bass definitely needs the power, and now that you mention it...taking the mid/tweeter away wouldn't do a ton. So the lower powered Marantz is likely out. I am still wondering then on the bi-amped for mid/tweet and bass. I would think that not having to split the power between 3 driver sections would benefit them.

Thoughts?

@Elizabeth: I'm gonna make a big assumption here...so don't hurt me. :-) I'm assuming that Mirage built them this way, and recommends multi-amping, as a means to better sound from the speaker. I've read the same of B&W speakers. Maybe it is a bad assumption...I just want to get the best sound out of them.

I look at it like a multi-processor PC...a PC with multiple processors, in general, runs better than a single processing PC. Just an analogy...not trying to get into that debate. Or a 12 cylinder engine as opposed to a 4...12 will perform magnificently comparatively. Does that make sense? Sometime I don't explain well. :-D