Biamping, yes or no?

"For example, you will almost certainly need to get an active xover. Just putting something like that into your system can do more damage to sound quality than the extra amp(s) can provide from the biamp in the first place."

But, generally, passive XOs have a more deleterious effect that active XOs.

My point was that you might be able to use the balance controls on your preamps to perform the same function as an active crossover. Also, the channel separation is perfect with separate preamps for each channel. Lastly, you use the volume controls to adjust balance between left and right speakers at the listening position.

Biamping is useful for live pro sound, but not so much for home audio, unless using "active" speakers with built in amps which can work fine (home recording studio monitors...save space). Otherwise, there are many good reasons why almost nobody does that, one of which is it usually doesn't sound better. I'm in the camp of using well designed smaller amps to get more bang for the buck, as lower powered amps from the same maker can have the tone mojo without wasting money on unnecessary extra wattage. Modern well designed passive crossovers from well regarded designers usually sound great...to believe otherwise is silly.

Wolf_garcia: Just to clarify, the method which I propose DOES IN FACT use the passive crossovers in OP's Tyler Acoustics D1 speakers.

Edwyun,

"But, generally, passive XOs have a more deleterious effect that active XOs."

Do you mean an external passive xover or just the ones inside the speaker? Either way, what kind of deleterious effects are you referring to? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'd just like to know.