Sorry, but you're talking bullshit here. If you want to back up your nonsens you will have to come with scientific proof (aka measurments of the better). But i had this discussion many times before, and nobody could proof my wrong when i said biamping with pasive crossovers is useless and a wast of amp power.
Your abusive language is unwelcome. I'll address the dual-mono question now. I understand electronic circuits very well, while you appear to lack that understanding. I won't argue with what people perceive about measurements, Since you are unfamiliar with amplifier behavior, I'll provide examples. The causes of crosstalk are several, and the elimination of those causes reduces crosstalk. [Edit: by "secondary pair" I mean the two ends of a single secondary winding.] Using separate rectifier banks reduces coupling between channels. Using separate transformer windings for each of two channels costs more but reduces coupling between the channels. Using separate transformers reduces it further. In place of those measures, increasing supply capacitance reduces crosstalk, but the relative cost is higher.
What sort of new measurements do you need?? These are fundamentals of amplifier design. Crosstalk measurements by 3rd parties and manufacturers are everywhere. Shall we look at various examples? Let's start with manufacturers with long presence and repute in home and studio. Bryston is certainly in that camp. All of Bryston's current stereo amps don't even list crosstalk now. Why not? _Two_ transformers! Their crosstalk will be close to their sinad, so no need.
What about cheaper but solid stereo amps? Take the $800 Schiit Vidar. It uses the method my company used and many other high-end amps builders use: separate secondaries per channel. Crosstalk is below -90dB even at 20kHz. That's a _very_ good number, which is almost unattainable with a single pair of secondaries. Do you get better imaging with lower crosstalk, like -90dB vs -70dB at 20khz? I think so, but you are free to disagree about that. How about an amp known for meeting extremely high specifications? The Benchmark AHB2 has a sinad around 130dB. It's full-range crosstalk? -92dB. Now, I can _promise_ you that they use two secondary pairs per channel.
Now let's look at crosstalk of typical but well-regarded stereo amps, where secondaries are shared between the channels. Older Hafler amps like the DH500 had typical THD measurements at 1kHz around 116dB and noise around 110dB, so let's call SINAD 109dB. But crosstalk hit -60dB at 20kHz, dropping to -66dB below 1kHz. Why so much crosstalk relative to THD? Both the seconday pair and the bridge rectifier were shared between channels.
Now I have said nothing extraordinary about these circuits. They perform as simulations predict. If you have any evidence, let alone theory, to contradict these examples, I am all ears.
On the matter of wasted money with biamping into passive crossovers, the answer depends on how the owner values what he or she hears. But the power and distortion results are not in dispute, they have been measured here, there, everywhere. I place a lot of inportance on stereo separation. As a likely purchaser of preamps and DACs, which have vastly lower crosstalk, I expect you do as well. I didn't come here to _disprove_ your version of wasted money on these competing setups of amplifiers, I simply stated _why_ the route I suggest makes sense. If you believe my numbers or relative values are wrong, please tell me which ones and why. I promise to give you my honest opinion, which is shared by many top designers whom I have the honor of knowing.
