• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Center channel with wet left/right?

yyz67

Inspired
I haven't tried his yet, but I've heard a few people mention using a dry center/main out with left/right speakers for pure wet atmospheric effects. I assume to do the mix for L/R would be set at 100% and level would be used to adjust the effective wet mix for the L/R outs, correct?

I get this working well with reverb/delay kinds of effects, but how would this work with stereo chorus? Maybe the level would need to be reduced sufficiently to not add too much to the center signal? Or should the center be significantly reduced?
 

chris

Legend!
Wet Dry Wet

Make a dry row to Out 1 for example.

Split to another row for the effects to Out 2 for example.

Plug into 3 separate speakers.

This method was popular and almost necessary back when effects completely ruined the guitar tone. It is not necessary using the better gear we have today like the Axe-Fx.
 

yyz67

Inspired
Thanks chris. I'll play with it.

My question is particularly about chorus, that is how to maintain (or improve) spaciousness with the W-D-W set up versus normal 2-ch stereo chorus.
 
Thanks chris. I'll play with it.

My question is particularly about chorus, that is how to maintain (or improve) spaciousness with the W-D-W set up versus normal 2-ch stereo chorus.
Maybe add a Mono Chorus to each wet with different parameters. I have done a chorus on one and a pitch detune in another with the middle dry before and it sounds cool
 
I run what you would call a wdw set up, with a pair of CLRs in stereo, and a Matrix power amp and 4 x12 in the center. I run the center totally dry, but I also allow quite a bit of dry amp signal in the CLRs as well, as I think it sounds way better that way.

I find that normal stereo chorus settings sound superb with this set up as well.
 

chris

Legend!
Thanks chris. I'll play with it.

My question is particularly about chorus, that is how to maintain (or improve) spaciousness with the W-D-W set up versus normal 2-ch stereo chorus.
are you trying it and it doesn't sound spacious? or is this hypothetical? i'm not sure why WDW wouldn't have spaciousness, unless the dry is just too loud. in that case, reduce its volume for that use?
 

Jozsef Kiss

Regular
I used a Roland VG-99 in front of the AXE-FX III.
In Roland VG-99, it was a very nice stereo effect.
I almost floated in the voice.
On the left was the dry signal. The right side is the delayed effect.
In Ax-FX III I have not been able to achieve this perfectly.
Can I request a preset setting?
Thank you for all your help!
I'm so stupid.
But I don't see the operation of AXE-FX III clearly yet.
 

luke

Fractal Fanatic
Back in the late 80s when doing the WDW setup, the point was to have the unmolested dry tone for your basis. I do not see the point in an all digital setup, just have less effects in the mix if you want more dry tone.
 

∞Fractals

Forum Addict
Back in the late 80s when doing the WDW setup, the point was to have the unmolested dry tone for your basis. I do not see the point in an all digital setup, just have less effects in the mix if you want more dry tone.
Yes ^^^^^!
 

decreebass

Veteran
If you think about it, you only have two ears anyway (shouldn't have to think too hard about that) - and with these digital products things get panned quite perfectly anywhere you want them in the stereo field.

The only benefit, as I can see, from a WDW setup is that if you set it up right, the dry speakers are not having to share their bandwidth with the wet signal and the wet speakers are not having to share their bandwidth with the dry signal; so you're producing purer dry and wet tones. However, they still have to share the same air and be processed by your ears (and share your eardrum's bandwidth), so you're not gaining a whole lot.

I always think back to my Wet - Stereo Dry - Wet rig; thing was massive and sounded huge. But... was that because of the panning and bandwidth freedom each speaker had or was it because I was literally surrounded by speakers?

I guess, to me, a WDW is more work than it's worth, but I'm very rarely listening to something with audiophile-quality monitors. It's a cool effect, but a simple stereo configuration is usually sufficient; and with all the settings that you can adjust in the chorus block, it should be quite possible to make one that sounds YUUUUUGE :)
 
Hmmmm, all I can say to the guys saying they don’t see the point is, have you tried it with your digital rig? Yes it’s true that it would be a pain in the ass to haul around, but there’s no denying the sonic advantage! I mean, the CLRs in stereo sound fantastic, but when you add that dry 4x12 in the center for a little amp in the room flavor and get the mix just right,.....Wow! Don’t knock it till you try it!;)
 

∞Fractals

Forum Addict
Hmmmm, all I can say to the guys saying they don’t see the point is, have you tried it with your digital rig? Yes it’s true that it would be a pain in the ass to haul around, but there’s no denying the sonic advantage! I mean, the CLRs in stereo sound fantastic, but when you add that dry 4x12 in the center for a little amp in the room flavor and get the mix just right,.....Wow! Don’t knock it till you try it!;)

Wait until you run quads ...
 

decreebass

Veteran
Don’t knock it till you try it!;)
I think the thing is that most of us HAVE tried it but have found the advantages, while sounding fantastic, not necessarily worth setting up, tearing down, lugging around, and maintaining a full rig like that. I agree it sounds awesome (as does a quad rig) but in the club - especially a club that doesn't even let me run stereo - all that becomes moot. It's a VERY cool effect though :D
 

luke

Fractal Fanatic
Hmmmm, all I can say to the guys saying they don’t see the point is, have you tried it with your digital rig? Yes it’s true that it would be a pain in the ass to haul around, but there’s no denying the sonic advantage! I mean, the CLRs in stereo sound fantastic, but when you add that dry 4x12 in the center for a little amp in the room flavor and get the mix just right,.....Wow! Don’t knock it till you try it!;)
Wait until you run quads ...
At most, the club might be in stereo, but many are still running in mono.

When a dog chases its tail, it either; gets tired and gives up or succeeds and bites it.
 

∞Fractals

Forum Addict
At most, the club might be in stereo, but many are still running in mono.

When a dog chases its tail, it either; gets tired and gives up or succeeds and bites it.
???

Why in my home I do run quads, my post is mostly in jest. Not sure what you mean?
 

yyz67

Inspired
If you think about it, you only have two ears anyway (shouldn't have to think too hard about that) - and with these digital products things get panned quite perfectly anywhere you want them in the stereo field.
[...]
a simple stereo configuration is usually sufficient
Just having some fun
Yes stereo can certainly be sufficient or great (or even "overkill" in some situations). I guess I am wondering about fun beyond stereo (at home).

Most of us have two ears (not me, maybe 1.5 now), but they are much more than just two point receivers. Our ear folds help encode directional information with subtle phase changes, our heads moving around also helps localization, and the interaction of sound sources and room/environment also plays a big part in creating a sound field (yuckiness/yumminess).

As a theoretical divergence... If we are talking about sound reproduction of something that is more complex than a point source, I think of mono as the 1st-order approximation or compression (in which the bulk of amplitude/timing info comes through) and stereo as a 2nd-order approximation to spatial distribution along an axis. To accurately place something in the stereo field also requires the listener to be situated perfectly at the midpoint (ideally in an anechoic space). So as a "3rd-order" approach, the WDW center amp "in the room" source plus some ambient sources can do what pure stereo can't... with all the extra work involved.
 
Yes stereo can certainly be sufficient or great (or even "overkill" in some situations). I guess I am wondering about fun beyond stereo (at home).

Most of us have two ears (not me, maybe 1.5 now), but they are much more than just two point receivers. Our ear folds help encode directional information with subtle phase changes, our heads moving around also helps localization, and the interaction of sound sources and room/environment also plays a big part in creating a sound field (yuckiness/yumminess).

As a theoretical divergence... If we are talking about sound reproduction of something that is more complex than a point source, I think of mono as the 1st-order approximation or compression (in which the bulk of amplitude/timing info comes through) and stereo as a 2nd-order approximation to spatial distribution along an axis. To accurately place something in the stereo field also requires the listener to be situated perfectly at the midpoint (ideally in an anechoic space). So as a "3rd-order" approach, the WDW center amp "in the room" source plus some ambient sources can do what pure stereo can't... with all the extra work involved.
Very well said! :)
 
Top Bottom