Wet/dry/wet

Admin M@ said:
Just a random two cents: I've learned something in recent years. The name "wet-dry-wet" is a bit misleading in the context of what some players do: the WET sides can sometimes contain some dry. In these cases, MIX-DRY-MIX might be more appropriate, but then, effects are also sometimes applied to the dry as well in the form of pedals out front that affect the entire rig -- and I don't just mean Drives/EQs/Compressors.

So if you're doing experiments, be open minded.
Click to expand...
+1 - another nuance is the amplification used. My on/off interest in wdw has mainly been wrt Brian May's rig. A key to his wdw definition seems to be that he uses 3 Vox AC30s in mix-dry-mix with stereo fx running fx-L into AC30-L and fx-R into AC30-R which gives fx like stereo chorus a more natural sound. This has to be improvised in Axefx given a 2 amp limit but I was able to set it up with Ax2 in the loop of Ax3 and out to 2 pairs of studio monitors (one pair in mono for dry). Sounded great, but I dismantled it as I did not find a huge difference from a well set up stereo preset - was not worth the complexity maintenance for me. Lots of different definitions I guess.
 
Last edited:
Ha ha….talk about geeking out on this stuff…..this is how I had stuff hooked up last time I wanted to get loud……

Ok, back when I was doing the tube amp thing, the ’in’ thing was to have two different kind of speakers in your 4x12. So my 4 x12 has h-30’s and g-30’s in an X pattern. It’s still wired in stereo, so last time I had the Axe hooked up to my ‘loud’ rig, I ran two stereo pairs….the left side of the left pair to a CLR, and the right side of that pair through an h-30 and a g-30 on that side of the 4x12, and vice versa for the other stereo pair….man, this sounded awesome! Not w-d-w, but awesome none the less! 54411D7D-A573-4348-9111-F513556C625C.gif
 
Admin M@ said:
Just a random two cents: I've learned something in recent years. The name "wet-dry-wet" is a bit misleading in the context of what some players do: the WET sides can sometimes contain some dry. In these cases, MIX-DRY-MIX might be more appropriate, but then, effects are also sometimes applied to the dry as well in the form of pedals out front that affect the entire rig -- and I don't just mean Drives/EQs/Compressors.

So if you're doing experiments, be open minded.
Click to expand...
If I were to go W/D/W again (did it for a while in the late '90s) in my setup, I would reserve the W for delays and post-amp choruses and reverb, to get the full left/right spead on those, and consider rotary as part of the D, with the Spacestation XL as the D speaker to take advantage of its spatial goodness on micro-delay stuff like phase, flange, and rotary. Plus, certain stuff (phase, flange, chorus) can go in front of the amp(s), as mentioned, and is, as a result, everywhere....
 
Wet-dry-wet has never appealed to me. We have two ears, so W/D/W is still going to mix down in the air into stereo channels, our ears, for our brain to recognize. W/D/W used in a studio and then mixed down would also be converted to stereo, except for the rare surround-sound mixes which again mix in the air for our two ears to hear, or something using spacial audio, which again uses a stereo field with phasing to give instrument positioning hints to our brain. And only occasionally does FOH run a full stereo spread, so it's lost on the audience when sending a feed to FOH.

Back in the late 70s or early 80s, whenever we first started seeing digital delays, I'd run a feed from my Mk IIB Boogie into the delay and then into a Yamaha G50 to do D/W, which sounded nice, especially when using the delay with a touch of modulation to causing chorusing to occur in the air, so I understand the appeal of the sound, but I get the same effect with a stereo preset to two FRFR.

As said above, it made sense in the old days of effects killing the guitar sound, especially when there was no FOH send and the audience heard the backline, but we don't have that problem in the digital realm unless we want to. And carrying an additional cab and taking the time to set it up and wire it in for that little bit of difference is too much ado for me.

As Joe said…
Joe Bfstplk said:
I would reserve the W for delays and post-amp choruses and reverb, to get the full left/right spead on those, and consider rotary as part of the D
Click to expand...
That's what I do, except I get a kick out of the rotary sweep moving across my cabs with a 75% mix so there's still some dry being mixed into the signal.

That's enough from me 'bout that… I think I see someone standing on my lawn… "HEY GET TF OFF MY GRASS!"
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
As Joe said…

That's what I do, except I get a kick out of the rotary sweep moving across my cabs with a 75% mix so there's still some dry being mixed into the signal.
Click to expand...

That's enough from me 'bout that… I think I see someone standing on my lawn… "HEY GET TF OFF MY GRASS!"
Click to expand...

That's the beauty of the Spacestation XL as center - it does great with rotary, adding the sense of the rotor and horn spinning in 3D. Italso does fun things with a panned flange, throwing the swirl all around the room in a Dramamine-approved fashion.... :)
 
I just decided, with pain in my heart, that my analogue rig W/D/W needs to go, after years and years of delivering the sounds I want on every stage, in every situation. But, as a lot has changed these days when it comes to gigs, venues and playing opportunities, I felt I had to change things too, in order to be able to adapt. My beloved rig has now more and more become a complicating factor, in terms of logistics to say the least. But I want to play! So, after checking with a friend whether a W/D/W setup is possible with the FM9 as well, the decision was made: replace the whole rig (100w Tube amp head, stereo poweramp, two 1x12 cabs, a 2x12 cab, and all the FX, MIDI switchers, pedals huge pedalboard, and what-not) using just the FM9 turbo.

My set-up would be: 3 separate lines going to FOH, and 3 separate lines with the very same sounds straight to 3 monitors, on stage (as I am used to have).

While waiting for the unit to be delivered, I joined this forum to see if any users have experience with this set-up too. And then I read posts of some of you, stating that the tonal quality of today's gear is such that the clarity and definition I was looking for can also be obtained using a normal stereo set-up, without the use of a third dry cabinet. I had never thought of that, to be honest!

Does anyone of you have particular experience when it comes to checking differences in clarity and definition between an analogue WDW setup and FM9 setup, in a live situation?
 
iMeel said:
Does anyone of you have particular experience when it comes to checking differences in clarity and definition between an analogue WDW setup and FM9 setup, in a live situation?
Click to expand...
3 speakers doing different things produces sound differently than 2 speakers in stereo. our ears perceive the spatial differences. so if you need that, do it.

but yes, analog vs FM9 has been discussed to the nth degree and you either like it or not. but many like it.

so it's really if you need 3 speakers vs what 2 or less can do, which has little to do with analog vs modeling. something you'll need to try and hear in the room yourself.
 
chris said:
3 speakers doing different things produces sound differently than 2 speakers in stereo. our ears perceive the spatial differences. so if you need that, do it.

but yes, analog vs FM9 has been discussed to the nth degree and you either like it or not. but many like it.

so it's really if you need 3 speakers vs what 2 or less can do, which has little to do with analog vs modeling. something you'll need to try and hear in the room yourself.
Click to expand...
Hi Chris, thank you for reply!

I did not by the way intend to start any discussion on the matter of analogue versus FM9; I already decided to make the switch to digital anyway. I was very, very impressed with the sound and feel of the FM3 of a friend I got to try out recently. So impressed, that I, at that very moment, felt that this Fractal technology meant the end of two decades of playing with my beloved old analogue rig. So yes, I like it too!

I was indeed wondering about particular live experiences with differences between a 2 speaker stereo set up and a three speaker set up. Especially with regards to the sound on the stage itself (not so much FOH, because the way I see it, WDW, whether analogue or digital, is just another 3 soundsources on the console for the engineer). Like you say: 3 speakers doing different things is different from 2 speakers in stereo, and of course you're right: one can only find out by trying out in real life. Which will be the first thing I'll undertake as soon as I have my hands on my FM9.

I'm hoping to gain some insights from people who might have gone through a similar process too. Also with regards to practical considerations.
For now, for instance, I have in mind to have this WDW set up with three powered full range monitors for my sound on stage. In my particular situation, with my old analogue rig, I usually place both wet cabs to the far right and left on the stage, so the three of us sit inbetween those two soundsources. The dry cab is situated right next to me. All cabs are directed backwards, so all guitarsounds are directed in the opposite direction of FOH. I would like to do the same, using the FM9 and three active monitors.

Well, I'll be trying things out soon, and I'll share my findings here anyway! Looking forward to experimenting with a new set-up.... Already feel inspired!
 
If I was to do this for recording, couldn’t I just use the stereo outputs from output 1 and have two cab blocks, one for a dry, center amp and one for the 100% amp/cab hard panned? I was thinking of using a volume pedal so I can blend in the wet as needed.
 
louderthangod said:
If I was to do this for recording, couldn’t I just use the stereo outputs from output 1 and have two cab blocks, one for a dry, center amp and one for the 100% amp/cab hard panned? I was thinking of using a volume pedal so I can blend in the wet as needed.
Click to expand...
Just put stereo wet effects after a single amp+cab. The signal from the amp and cab will be centered and dry while the wet fx will be hard panned. If you want to record the wet and dry separately, just put a split after the cab block to its own output, and set the last effect on the original chain to 100% wet. Personally I don't see much use for any of this in a recording context. I almost always double track, or if I want a take down the middle, triple track. Stereo or double tracked parts can still be positioned in the stereo field by using balance instead of pan, i.e. turn one side down a bit.
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
I've been looking at the smaller unit; It'd probably work well for my needs.
Click to expand...
The Spacestation "not XL" is nice as well. :)

When not running through the Spacestation, I run monitors L/R, Matrix (or Milkman) with guitar cabs L/R. Here's my two cents...

A lot of folks have the tendency to do panned mono, where everything is left or right. Intrigued by Bruce Swedien's (RIP) thoughts on stereo images, and building on some folks' suggestion that Mix-Dry-Mix isn't necessary with modelers, I encourage folks to protect the center image, and keep the stereo image stereo, prior to considering the third cabinet option.

Clear as mud? Here's an example. If I wish my solo tone detuned, I will keep the tone focused by only very slight panning. The accompanying ambient delays go further left and right to surround the center, but not hard left and right. Thus if one is receiving the stereo image at the mixing desk, the pan control will still function to position my rig in space. Cheers all, D
 
Last edited:
strabes said:
You don't need 2 cab blocks or multiple amps for "wet/dry/wet" when recording with a modeler in stereo. Just put stereo wet effects after a single amp+cab. The signal from the amp and cab will be centered and dry while the wet fx will be hard panned. If you want to record the wet and dry separately, just put a split after the cab block to its own output, and set the last effect on the original chain to 100% wet. Personally I don't seem much use for any of this in a recording context. I almost always double track, or if I want a take down the middle, triple track.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I want to use different amps and cabs for tonal reasons.
I’m pretty against double thru quad tracking. It loses immediacy and tends to blur sounds where I prefer crispness and detail most of the time. The only times I’ll add enforcement tracks is to play a variation of the part while being the only guitarist. Live I run a 3 amp wet/dry/wet rig where the wet is for ambience and width but I make weirdo music so it isnt necessarily useful for most situations.
 
chris said:
3 speakers doing different things produces sound differently than 2 speakers in stereo. our ears perceive the spatial differences. so if you need that, do it.

but yes, analog vs FM9 has been discussed to the nth degree and you either like it or not. but many like it.

so it's really if you need 3 speakers vs what 2 or less can do, which has little to do with analog vs modeling. something you'll need to try and hear in the room yourself.
Click to expand...
This also heavily depends on the venue. If they only have Left and Right and don't have a separate Center to run dry through all you end up doing is setting the mix at the console. You won't have this perceived spatial difference. You can set the mix in the FM9 and it would do the same thing. You are just controlling the mix yourself instead of the sound engineer...
 
Time based effects (delay, reverb, pitch, chorus, flanger) run 100% wet don't really suffer from phase issues since delay is inherent in their sound. Also, in air mixing of signals is almost never perfect, so it's more forgiving to phase issues. Unless your ears are equal distance away from both speakers, you're getting a time/phase difference anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom