Is this a delusional response that offends your core beliefs, or are you merely impolite?
Your statement is "totally irrelevant"! I suspect that yours is a knee-jerk reaction and you probably didn't read (or comprehend) the article that I linked to.
Galen Carol addresses the mistaken impression that some people have about passive biamping, whether it's done with separate outboard power amplifiers or the onboard amplifiers found in AVR's. The fact is that by retaining the built-in passive crossovers found in the speaker systems most of the supposed power "increase" touted by the proponents of fools biamping is wasted as heat by the crossover. This is a fact, even in your vertical biamping example. In order to be worthwhile, biamping must be accomplished by completely disconnecting the passive crossovers that are built in to the speaker systems. An outboard electronic crossover must be employed in place of the passive crossover.
Are you a "fools biamping" fanboy, a misinformed enthusiast, or just plain argumentative?
You posted here in attempt to make a point. You need to back it up with scientific proof.
I'm not asking you for your anecdotal experiences or testimonials praising passive biamping. Please provide the science to back up what you're saying. This is, after all, the AVSCIENCEForum.
The main point, to repeat in case you missed it, is passive crossovers absorb power. I wonder why that's not an ongoing controversy - you know, telling people they need 1000W per channel because of that dastardly passive x-over. Maybe that's why people like those big amps so much. To put it another way, if passive crossovers are such a terrible thing when passively biamping, why aren't they a bad thing with a single amp channel in use. They are, but no one cares because that's the way it is.