"Petrucci Rig" Factory Preset Update JPIIC+ and MIMIQ

@Cooper Carter, thanks for the Mimiq preset. Just wondering why you put the pitch block after the amp block, as opposed to inserting it before two parallel amp blocks?

This question arises from the Petrucci gear podcast you posted on May 12, 2020, in another thread:


At 2:33:48, there's a lively discussion of the Mimiq being best placed before two amps.

Although the discussion was referencing two real amps (as opposed to two modeled amps), what are your thoughts on placing the pitch block before two amp blocks, with slight differences between the settings of the two amp blocks? Do you think relocating the pitch block before two parallel amp blocks would get even closer to what the Mimiq can do before two real amps?
 
Last edited:
My real Mimiq pedal sounds best to my ears placed before 2 parallel amps - makes sense to me since a use case of Mimiq is to mimic the effect of 2 guitar players playing the same notes (typically each would be playing thru their own rig hence the parallel amps coming after). Having said that Mimiq also sounds cool after a single amp block. I like Cooper's preset for Mimicing Mimiq but, as a quick and easy alternative Mimiq Mimicer, I've been putting the enhancer block between single amp block and stereo cab with 2 hard panned cabs to get in the Mimiq ball park.
 
do you think relocating the pitch block before two parallel amp blocks would get even closer to what the Mimiq can do before two real amps?

Not really, no.

The actual pedal before an amp has to be sent into two separate amp, cab, and mic setups in order to do stereo. Without two rigs for left and right, you just get the doubling, not the stereo. But these rigs in most cases would be tonally identical, so you need two of the same rig just to get the stereo effect in addition to the doubling.

In Fractal land, this can easily be accomplished by just dropping the Pitch block after the amp and cab. Instant stereo and doubling, and the same tone on each side.

There's no need for the extra CPU and routing (and the need to constantly match settings in another amp block any time you make a change to one) that comes from running two identical amps in parallel.

In this case, any difference you may or may not get from putting the pitch block before the amp is due to the non-linearity of the amp block more than the fact that you're using two amps. The effect will be slightly tonally muted and less pronounced, which you can easily approach with the block after the amp by just lowering the mix.

TL,DR; it's not really going to get you any closer to the pedal, but you will waste a lot of time setting up and tweaking two identical amps.
 
That said, you could get a cool effect with pitch block before and two amps that are NOT tonally identical---and are even drastically different!
This may very well sound more like two guitarists to you, since it's two different tones, so by all means, try that.
But that's not the JP use case, of course. If the two amps are identical, my recommendation is to skip them and just use the block after a single amp block.
 
... any difference you may or may not get from putting the pitch block before the amp is due to the non-linearity of the amp block more than the fact that you're using two amps.

... If the two amps are identical, my recommendation is to skip them and just use the block after a single amp block.

@Cooper Carter, that's a very useful perspective, thanks. Presumably, the same logic would apply when the actual Mimiq pedal is used with a single amp block.
 
Last edited:
My real Mimiq pedal sounds best to my ears placed before 2 parallel amps ... Mimiq also sounds cool after a single amp block.

Thanks, @sprint. This makes me wonder about using the Mimiq pedal with the pitch block developed by @Cooper Carter. Or even just two iterations of CC's pitch block. Theoretically, such a setup could produce 4 quasi-distinct mono signals, which could feed two stereo cab blocks with 8 IRs panned -100, -75, -50, -25, 25, 50, 75, and 100.

Without having actually tried this (yet), I'd love to hear from anyone who has. Assuming the eight IRs are different, does this setup add depth vs messiness?

Also, if anyone has tried three iterations of CC's pitch block in a surround setup, please speak up. I'd love to hear whether this setup satisfyingly feeds signals left/right, forward/backward, and up/down simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
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 blocks.

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.
 
Used the JP2C+ and the Petrucci cab quite a lot in my live preset. Works better in a live situation than the factory preset....

Dude, thank you so much! It is awesome. Love how you made it useable for live but kept it so massive. Hat tip to you.
 
Dude, thank you so much! It is awesome. Love how you made it useable for live but kept it so massive. Hat tip to you.

Yu're very welcome! I got a couple of videos, where I'm explaining my way of getting live tones with the AxeFx, e.g.:







Cheers !!!
 
Yu're very welcome! I got a couple of videos, where I'm explaining my way of getting live tones with the AxeFx, e.g.:







Cheers !!!

Oh I will definetly check that out. I have worked quite some time on a “kitchen sink” van halen sound based on the judgement day song. I am not looking for an exact copy, but the ballpark. I started with the 5153 lead red, and put the detuner in stat I copied from leon’s “trick or treat” video. Now looking for the phaser and the flanger. I need to work on the frequencies too. I will also listen to the live album “right here right now” for reference, but from memory I think Id like my sound to have a bit more body. Like what you did in the JP setting. Not too boomy, but plenty of oomph left. Have a great evening and thanks for the vids!
Harm
 
Do these work on the FM3 ? Especially interested in the Mimiq.

I get zero sound from the preset in my FM3... HOWEVER, I saved the Mimiq block and it works. Import the preset (even if it doesn't work) and then select the Pitch block (click it once to select). Then under Block Library (far left on the Edit software) you can then save it... call it Mimiq or whatever. You then can use that block in your presets.
 
Sorry for the newbie question - my FM3 arrives in 2 days. For the preset that Cooper provided (originally for the Axe-Fx 3), will this work for the FM3 as well, or is there in fact a new preset that is the same/sounds as good as what Cooper made? Not a power user when it comes to heavy effects loads, but am starting to question if the FM3 is the right choice if the Axe-Fx 3 presets aren't compatible, which I guess if they use parallel signal paths or require more CPU than the FM3 has, it makes sense they won't be.

For this specific question - is the Cooper provided Petrucci preset he made for the Fx3 compatible as-is for the FM3? I see someone uploaded an FM3 version, but was it "dumbed-down" or the exact same? Thanks all.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the newbie question - my FM3 arrives in 2 days. For the preset that Cooper provided (originally for the Axe-Fx 3), will this work for the FM3 as well, or is there in fact a new preset that is the same/sounds as good as what Cooper made? Not a power user when it comes to heavy effects loads, but am starting to question if the FM3 is the right choice if the Axe-Fx 3 presets aren't compatible.

You can drop it into the FM3, yes. But there's also an updated FM3 factory preset in there already. #083
So you should be set from the get-go
 
Back
Top Bottom