Possibly -- it seems plausible, but:
1. I've never heard of a bacteria that cannot use acetate as a carbon source and many, many (nearly all) bacteria can utilize ethanol.
2. We have no idea what the denitrifying bacterial strains found in a reef tank "prefer" in terms of carbon source.
I agree we don't and it may vary from tank to tank. .Anecdotally , however, reports of reactions by reef organisms including corals and anemones to more complex carbohydrates vs ethanol or acetic acid are not favorable. Sugar for example has caused browning and recision ,ime and that of others.
3. I've seen no evidence that mixture =diversity even in wastewater publications. And there is a LOT of research in that area compared to reef tanks.
More carbon sources might mean more diversity. But if that is the case, why stop with two sources? We could be using methanol, isopropanol, benzoic acid, citrate, PHAs, etc etc.
Some folks don't ,they use bio plastics, sugar ,ascorbic acid , rice potatoes, soy, milk etc. Often with poor results in terms of coral vibrancy and overall tank health.
Varied and more complex sources of carbon will involve more bacterial activity before acetate is available . " Bacterial diversity" is a term that often implies a benefit but is more of a potential negative ,imo, in dosing organic carbon.
I prefer to take the shortest least complex routes to acetate .
Ethanol does involve an extra step via bacteria(AABs) vs vinegar . I'm not sure this oxidizing bacterial acitivity is of any benefit but doesn't seem to do any harm.The primary reason I've been using it along with vinegar for a long time is not for any increased bacterial diversity occurring but because ethanol lends itself to bolus dosing without the pH spikes vinegar brings when bolus dosed. The bolus dosing not only suits my routine but it seems the bacteria in my tanks function well with the burst afforded by a bolus dose , likely in terms of increased anaerobic activity.