I run two separate head/cab/mic/effects chains in parrallel - and the same in a virtualized world. Oddly enough, I worked out what I wanted in the Pod X3 Live and built my primary hardware rig from that template. I've been very satisfied.
I run several "patches", but all in dual-tone mode. My setups are not overly complex (gate, comp, boost or dist, head/cab, eq, delay, reverb and a rotary w/horn, x2).
The equipment needs to "host" the amp/cab/mic and power sections, regardless, so what we're really talking about is incrementally adding to that baseline in a "dual-tone" setup. Capacity is capacity. If running 2x amp/cab/mic and power sections takes up a large % of the DSP horsepower as baseline, that means you "lose" features as a result.
Since my chains are "on" most of the time, this would necessitate a compromise by adding outboard equipment, or forcing me to drop primary components out of each of my signal chains. Either of those conditions would defeat some of the purpose of buying and running the equipment, and if I had to drop peices out of my chain, it would marginalize what I want others to hear. Obviously that's not the point, either.
In thinking on this some more, perhaps the product is not ready to do what I need it to do in a single unit - I'm ok with that explanation. Part of this thread is attempting to resolve "potential" from "boundaries". If the AxeFx positions itself as being capable of running "dual stacks" we should probably put that into the context of what's reasonably possible in a practical application. If that's a key selling point for someone like me, and I'm potentially dropping $2k thinking I can run dual stacks and chains, and I'm not able to, my response knowing that going into the situaiton will be vastly improved from finding that out after the fact.
If nothing else, this thread highlights this for others, but it shouldn't be interpreted as a criticism that marginalizes what's been created with the AxeFx. It's still the finest of its kind out there.
I use my "virtual" equipment about 10x more than my tube/vintage stuff, and it makes sense to stick with what is most comfortable. Going virtual has other "benefits": heat, power consumption, listening levels, recording, portability, as well as predictable consistent quality, and the ability to manipulate complex sound palletes. Those reasons still persist., and on those merits alone I could buy without remorse.
I've made a substantial investment in physical equipment; making a similar investment in the processing equipment and consolidated physical footprint (FRFR) shouldn't be a huge leap of faith if we're comparing apples to apples. It's important to recognize the boundaries of "possible" vs. realistic, however, and I think I have set some realistic expectations for myself now. If my specific requirements dictate purchasing 2 AxeFX Ultras, I can probably live with that.
Great community! Thanks for the support and dialog!
Best,
zt