As Cooper touches on above, the varying response of going thru 2 separate L/R panned amp/cab blocks with a Mimiq pedal in front accentuates what the pedal does to some extent (more so if the 2 amp/cabs are different) but I agree its very expensive from a CPU standpoint and probably not worth it practically.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. My initial exchange with CC was focused on the number and placement of amp
My latest question deals with the signal after
a single amp block. In particular, it deals with splitting the post-amp signal using multiple iterations of CC's pitch shifter, and feeding a bunch of IRs at different panning positions.
Why is this question significant? Because two of CC's pitch-shifter blocks may go beyond what the Mimiq can do with 3 dubs, since the Mimiq can only produce one set of left/right signals. Meanwhile, two of CC's pitch shifter blocks can, in theory, produce 4 quasi-distinct signals - after the amp block.
Feeding many quasi-distinct signals to many IRs, at different panning positions, will certainly be CPU intensive. However, I'd still like to hear what it sounds like - particularly with a true surround sound setup.
I won't have time to run tests until the weekend. If the results are outstanding, I may record some samples and post them.
Of course, my recordings would only be in stereo. I'd be very interested in hearing if anyone has tried CC's pitch shifter in surround, with IRs panned all around the listener. (I realize that this would require IR processing beyond a single AFX3, with each IR feeding a different surround-sound channel.)
With the dual amp/cab config I only run the actual pedal in mono, on one side only, and with one voice...
Yes I think we discussed this some months ago in a separate thread.