Internal Wet/Dry Using the Grid?

Deadpool_25

Fractal Fanatic
One benefit of wet/dry is being able to use very wet effects while still retaining the clarity of a dry path, right?

Can't you basically do that with a single amp and cab (sim or real using 4CM) using the Axe's grid? Just separate dry and wet paths to the output, correct?
 
Last edited:
If I understand you correctly (I'm not confident I do), you are referring to the wet/dry/wet method, where a dry center speaker is placed between two other speakers emitting only the wet effects.

If so, then no. The separation in that method comes from the physical separation in real space between the dry and wet cabinets. Separating the dry and wet signals in the grid, then recombining them in the grid and sending them to a single amp/speaker is no different than a standard mono setup.

What you describe is simply running the effects blocks in parallel. There are reasons you may or may not want to do this, but they are not at all related to your inquiry.

My beef with the wet/dry/wet method is that only listeners near the center are getting a balanced ratio of effects to dry. I also perceive the dry cab as begin disintegrated from the effects; too dry and direct. It also is defeated if you record to stereo. But it sounds amazing when you are sitting in your room or are on a small stage.
 
Last edited:
If you hard pan the wet and dry paths opposite each other on the grid, you can use the left and right main outputs for a wet/dry setup, but each is then limited to mono output. If you want stereo effects output (wet/dry/wet), then you have to use separate outputs like steadystate said.
 
Okay thanks for your input. This is all just for home use. I have some new gear so it's fun trying to figure out how to setup a rig. With the info you posted, I think I know what I'm going to do. Thanks again!
 
If I understand you correctly (I'm not confident I do), you are referring to the wet/dry/wet method, where a dry center speaker is placed between two other speakers emitting only the wet effects.

If so, then no. The separation in that method comes from the physical separation in real space between the dry and wet cabinets. Separating the dry and wet signals in the grid, then recombining them in the grid and sending them to a single amp/speaker is no different than a standard mono setup.

What you describe is simply running the effects blocks in parallel. There are reasons you may or may not want to do this, but they are not at all related to your inquiry.

My beef with the wet/dry/wet method is that only listeners near the center are getting a balanced ratio of effects to dry. I also perceive the dry cab as begin disintegrated from the effects; too dry and direct. It also is defeated if you record to stereo. But it sounds amazing when you are sitting in your room or are on a small stage.

Revisiting this.

So I was referring to simple Wet/Dry (not W/D/W). One of the problems with running a standard mono rig is that if you run your effects very wet, your main tone can get washed out. You lose attack and such. The benefit of a Wet/Dry rig is that you can run very wet effects because your dry path runs separately--normally to a separate cabinet.

But should it matter if the wet and dry signals are coming from one cab or two? If I send a 100% dry signal and a 100% wet signal to the same cab, the attack of the dry signal should still be present. You can send two (or more) signals to the same speaker and have both signals still wholly intact.

@Admin M@ , am I crazy here?
 
If I send a 100% dry signal and a 100% wet signal to the same cab, the attack of the dry signal should still be present. You can send two (or more) signals to the same speaker and have both signals still wholly intact.

Running a separate dry row doesn't change what the dry signal is. It might change what the wet signal consists of, depending on what you started & ended with.
 
Running a separate dry row doesn't change what the dry signal is. It might change what the wet signal consists of, depending on what you started & ended with.

Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. I don't think I'm saying anything about changing the dry signal. I may not be communicating what I mean.

If I send a dry row (comp, overdrives, phaser, etc., amp, cab) straight to the output...
And also send that signal (via a parallel row) through post effects (delay, verb, trem, etc.) and run that row (100% wet) to the output

Am I not getting the sound of the 100% dry row AND the sound of the 100% wet row...at the same time, through a single speaker?
 
Not sure I follow what you're trying to say. I don't think I'm saying anything about changing the dry signal. I may not be communicating what I mean.

If I send a dry row (comp, overdrives, phaser, etc., amp, cab) straight to the output...
And also send that signal (via a parallel row) through post effects (delay, verb, trem, etc.) and run that row (100% wet) to the output

Am I not getting the sound of the 100% dry row AND the sound of the 100% wet row...at the same time, through a single speaker?
Yes you are
 
If I send a dry row (comp, overdrives, phaser, etc., amp, cab) straight to the output...
And also send that signal (via a parallel row) through post effects (delay, verb, trem, etc.) and run that row (100% wet) to the output

Am I not getting the sound of the 100% dry row AND the sound of the 100% wet row...at the same time, through a single speaker?

You are, but think of what the wet signal consists of in that example if your parallel effects were delay & reverb. How are you going to get the delay & reverb you'd usually hear (in series) without letting dry signal through the "wet" row?

The routing alters what options are available for the wet signal. Whether that's useful depends on what results you're trying to get from those effects.
 
One benefit of wet/dry is being able to use very wet effects while still retaining the clarity of a dry path, right?

Can't you basically do that with a single amp and cab (sim or real using 4CM) using the Axe's grid? Just separate dry and wet paths to the output, correct?
a 50% mix of a reverb (for example) in series is 1/2 dry and 1/2 wet.

a 100% dry path plus a 100% wet path is a 50% mix of both - 1/2 dry and 1/2 wet.

through a single speaker, one routing can't have a "clearer dry" signal versus another routing, if they are both the same resulting mix (50%). 1/2 dry and 1/2 wet is the same sound no matter how you get to that balance.

"very wet effects" can only be 100% at maximum relative to the overall balance between Dry and Wet. that's exactly what the Mix control does in the - mixes between Dry and Wet.

the lore of Wet/Dry/Wet is using 3 separate speakers. it's the physicality of each sound coming from a slightly different position/location that gives the "clarity"... though typically the player just turns the dry up louder, thus the illusion of "clearer."
 
You are, but think of what the wet signal consists of in that example if your parallel effects were delay & reverb. How are you going to get the delay & reverb you'd usually hear (in series) without letting dry signal through the "wet" row?

The routing alters what options are available for the wet signal. Whether that's useful depends on what results you're trying to get from those effects.

Even in a traditional Wet/Dry setup your dry signal goes into the wet effects. For example:

Dry = Comp, OD, Amp
Wet = Comp, OD, Amp, Delay, Reverb
 
a 50% mix of a reverb (for example) in series is 1/2 dry and 1/2 wet.

a 100% dry path plus a 100% wet path is a 50% mix of both.

through a single speaker, one routing can't have a "clearer dry" signal versus another routing, if they are both the same resulting mix (50%). "very wet effects" can only be 100% at maximum relative to the overall balance between Dry and Wet. that's exactly what the Mix control does in the - mixes between Dry and Wet.

the lore of Wet/Dry/Wet is using 3 separate speakers. it's the physicality of each sound coming from a slightly different position/location that gives the "clarity"... though typically the player just turns the dry up louder, thus the illusion of "clearer."


I'm only talking about a wet/dry setup. Not wet/dry/wet which is a mixture of, and combines the benefits of, both wet/dry and stereo setups.

For reference touching on what I'm talking about...it's a long video but I thought it was interesting.

 
I'm only talking about a wet/dry setup. Not wet/dry/wet which is a mixture of, and combines the benefits of, both wet/dry and stereo setups.

For reference touching on what I'm talking about...it's a long video but I thought it was interesting.


the concepts of WDW are the same for WD, just with mono effects. i'll click through that video, but a resulting 50% mix is the same regardless of how you get there.

you can't have a 50% dry that's clearer or more dry - it's 50%.
 
now that i got to the actual Wet/Dry part of the video 15 minutes in.... it's the same that i said regarding WDW.

the benefit they are describing comes from the 2 physically separate speakers and sources. you can hear also that their "wet" amp isn't 100% wet anyway. they are describing mixing amp tones in addition to the Wet/Dry concept.

when Dry/Wet is being mixed then going to a single speaker - or microphone - it ultimately becomes the same as Serial routing with the Mix knob. at 19:20 in that video, the resulting sound is really just "turning the mix knob lower" on the Axe.

he's just mixing more dry into the overall sound - he's not really giving MORE reverb and delay since he's adding more dry to balance it back out. he's just adding more reverb and delay to one amp, which gives the thought of "more."

it's like "wow look at my reverb pedal! it's set to 100%! i could never do that before this Wet/Dry setup!" so in their mind, they're thinking WOW that's a lot of reverb since the pedal is set to 100%. but then they fill the room up with the Dry amp and get the resulting mix to 50/50 (or whatever).

also, the result is actually the same for us viewers and listeners! the real benefit, again, is to those 2 guys sitting at the amps in that room with the sound physically surrounding their ears.

we see this in many threads here about parallel rows. people think because they set the Mix of the Parallel reverb to 100%, they are getting more reverb. but the result - the summation - of the 100% wet + 100% dry is... 50/50 mix. the same result as setting the Mix knob similarly.
 
Last edited:
I would think that trying to have your wet and your dry coming through the same speaker (ie, the usual arrangement) may "wash out" the dry attack, because the speaker that needs to pop for the attack, is already in motion playing the "wash" of effects.
The benefit to W/D/W would still exist with just W/D, if that benefit is the dry attack and focus.

Ergo, even if you stacked your wet and dry speakers physically atop one another, you'd still have the "separation".

Could be totally wrong here.
 
I would think that trying to have your wet and your dry coming through the same speaker (ie, the usual arrangement) may "wash out" the dry attack, because the speaker that needs to pop for the attack, is already in motion playing the "wash" of effects.
let's say you mic'd up 2 separate amps, one wet, one dry. the PA speaker with those signals would be in the same situation, having to recreate both the wet and dry. and it works there no problem :D

it's the same concept with the Axe and one speaker. coming through the same speaker, you can't have a 50/50 mix and have more dry or a clearer dry sound because of parallel rows.
 
let's say you mic'd up 2 separate amps, one wet, one dry. the PA speaker with those signals would be in the same situation, having to recreate both the wet and dry. and it works there no problem :D
"No problem", sure - but we're talking about a unique set up here. Who knows if it'd sound even better if there were two speakers per channel with PA, that were exclusively wet and dry! :D
 
The whole point of Wet/Dry or Wet/Dry/Wet is that the signals are not mixed together electronically. Instead they are sent to separate physical speakers and then mix in the air. There is a clear difference to the listener. The further apart the speakers, the more it will affect the final mix that the listener hears. Mixing the wet and dry together at the output of the grid is really no different than just using regular series or parallel effect setups in term of the interaction of wet to dry. You are simply controlling your mix at a different point in the chain.
 
Theoretically couldn't someone simulate w/d/w by using the loop out of output2 right before the fx blocks and use stereo fx out of output 1? It would probably work better live than recording.
 
Back
Top Bottom