# Dry vs wet libraries - some thoughts and examples - added Sonokinetic OS to the comparison



## muk (Jan 19, 2020)

******************************************************
Edit 22.12.2021:

Let me add Sonokinetic Orchestral Strings to the examples. I find them to bring something new to the table that none of the other libraries have:

Sonokinetic OS 'focused' mix

View attachment Encore Sonokinetic OS focused mix.mp3


Sonokinetic OS wide mix

View attachment Encore Sonokinetic OS wide mix.mp3



To my ears, SOS are closest to a real permormance sound by some margin. The Berlin Strings First Chair version may sound more 'perfect'. But now that BST FC examples sounds artificially glossy to me. SOS sounds human in comparison. And I also really like the room sound of SOS. I find that pizzicati are always a good way to make the room audible in samples. Really lovely here.
Other things to mention: SOS have a lot of depth. They also sound a bit far away. If you need a close up strings sound, these would not be my first port of call. And you can also hear that there is a bit of room tone in the samples. They haven't been aggressively cleaned - a process that more often than not sucks the livelyness out of samples I find. So I like that. If you prefer very clean samples, you may not.
*****************************************************


Hi everyone,

Dry versus wet samples. It's a hotly debated topic, and I am not giving an answer which one is better. But my stance has changed a bit recently, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

Pro's and con's of each should be pretty well established by now. Dry libraries offer more control regarding panning, and room size. The transitions are easier to program. But does artificial reverb on top of dry samples really sound like they'd been recorded in whatever room/hall/studio you are trying to insinuate? Wet samples have that natural sound of the room, but transitions can get smeary, or the room drops out etc.

I started with mainly dry libraries because I liked the control. But recently, the sound quality of the source has become increasingly important for me. And I have discovered some limitations that I have not been able to overcome. While I think that dry woodwinds work very well, with strings it has become a mixed bag for me. I was a long time user of VSL Dimension Strings. Playability, control, and consistency are second to none for me.

However, while for long notes I can get by with artificial reverb, I was increasingly bugged with the the short short sounds with strong transients. No matter what I tried, it simply never sounded like a real recorded pizzicato in a nice hall. If you go to a symphony concert and hear the strings play pizzicato, there is that nice bloom that seems to be more than the actually played note. And I can not get that from artificial reverb, no matter what I tried.

Here is an example. My old setup with VSL Dimension Strings, all pizzicato:









Encore Dimension Strings original setup.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com





It sounds ok to my ears. There is some nice panning, but not too much depth. But most importantly, I don't hear that bloom of the sound in a nice hall. There is no room present. Compare it to this:









Encore BFC Strings.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com





The difference is not even funny. Compared to this second version, the first one sounds completely flat. Hearing that second version I would never want to go back to the first one. I made a second version with Dimension Strings with more reverb. It is a bit better, but still lacks that natural room sound:









Encore Dimension Strings more reverb.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com






With long articulations the contrast is less stark, and the downsides of the wet recordings start to come into play. Here is a short comparison. A bit of the Elgar Serenade with the wet recorded strings from the second example above:









Elgar BFC Strings.mp3 | Powered by Box







app.box.com





And here another version with Light and Sound Chamber Strings. They are not completely dry, but have been recorded in a room with little tail. The ERs come from the real room, the tail is artificial reverb:

https://app.box.com/s/5cpo5du85tae94rck6v13h09tsgyced0
Both work about equally well to my ears. I slightly prefer the first one, but that is mainly due to the timbre of the strings, not the room information.


So where does that leave us? Unsurprisingly, I think that choosing dry or wet according to the task you set yourself is the best way to go at the moment. If you need short sounds with present transients, I don't think that dry libraries can hold up with wet ones. For woodwinds, dry libraries work great for me. For strings, I am going to choose depending on what I need to do. For brass and percussion, I think the wet libraries have an advantage.

Anyway, I am curious to hear where you guys and gals are at with this.

If you are interested, here are a few more pizzicato examples with various other libraries:






Box







app.box.com





Out of the bunch I think Spitfire Chamber Strings are a close second to my example above. Then VSL Synchron Strings. The drier libraries have a harder time at pulling this off convincingly.


----------



## Oxytoxine (Jan 19, 2020)

Thank you for your effort to share the examples and thoughts!

I spent a huge junk of the last few months pondering exactly this question. Endlessly comparing libs to each other, experimenting with different reverbs / spatializing etc.

I started out with dry libs, as it was recommended to me that they are more flexible and that I would just have “to put them in the right room” and the results would be equally pleasing. While, depending on the musical context, this is true, and e.g. for pop / rock / hybrid music etc. where the strings are mixed with other electronic sound sources with a completely different mixing paradigm (that does not necessarily include realism), I prefer the dry approach. But I do not manage to get a nice, pleasing tonal character, sounding like it really was recorded in a hall, out of my dry string libs.

There is just no contest. Like you mentioned – for longs, almost anything goes, but the trouble starts with the shorts.

However, I am a beginner, so I was under the impression that I obviously am doing things wrong. Your post therefore resonates very well with me, will read with interest.

I also completely share your judgement of the posted examples. Example 2 is so much more pleasing. Which library is it? 

The Light and Sound Chamber Strings with a bit of added tail are beautiful.

As I am a novice, I have nothing of substance to add to the debate, other than each dry and / or wet lib has its place and advantage in a certain musical context and its sweet spots, but bringing / mixing it all together or bend them to work in a musical context they are not suited to – what a pain. Personally, I am in the process of being a wet convert for creating a big junk of the music that I actually like the most.

Good luck in your endeavours!


----------



## Scamper (Jan 19, 2020)

muk said:


> For woodwinds, dry libraries work great for me. For strings, I am going to choose depending on what I need to do. For brass and percussion, I think the wet libraries have an advantage.



While I like my strings and brass wet, I almost prefer woodwinds, that are rather dry, which is odd.

Btw, I think your link for the Light and Sound Chamber Strings version of the Elgar example isn't right. It's the same link as for the BFC version.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jan 19, 2020)

A little reverb can do wonders. The instruments in Garritan are so bone dry as to sound thin and phony. Add some reverb (which is available in the Effects section, applied via the mixer), and "It's ALIVE!"


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 19, 2020)

I feel pretty much the same. For long notes, I don't really need the natural ambience - often times I actually prefer dry oder dry-ish samples, because there's something about the releases and connections of "wet" long notes that really throws me off and it's kinda difficult for me to work around.

But with short notes and quick transients, dry will never quite get you there. Especially pizz is really tricky. I actually often use the Albion Legacy pizz patch - even if the rest is dedicated string sections - because that particular patch is really quite special and for me captures that symphonic pizz sound really well. Synchron Strings and SCS are lovely too, but there's something about that Albion patch I can't get enough of. I'll either layer them in or even use them on their own.

Woodwinds I prefer dry. There's something really weird about very ambient woods.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 19, 2020)

I think this topic is the same as ITB and OTB mixing. It's absolutely pointless trying to figure out which one is "better". It's all good, they all work. For some beautifully, for some not so much. Put a few hundred dollar reverb on the samples and they'll sound incredible. And in the end, samples will NEVER sound like the real thing. No matter how good they were recorded, programmed or produced. It's just not possible. 

I think it's more important that we focus on making good, soulful music and not distract ourselves with things that are far less important. 

Sorry for my little rant. I mean well 😊


----------



## John R Wilson (Jan 19, 2020)

I've kind of come from the other direction. I started with wet samples and have started moving towards using dryer samples. I previously used SSO for the majority of my pieces. However, on recently updating EWHO to diamond I have started using this more.

The problem I find with wet libraries such as Spitfire Symphonic Strings is that while the instruments do have depth to them and sound very nice in regards to the instruments tone, the overall mixes can end up sounding rather muffled with less clarity between instruments. This could just be a lack of mixing ability on my behalf. However, in comparison I have been finding EWHO more flexible in this regards and I seem to be getting more separation between instruments than what I was able to get with something like SSO.


----------



## Saxer (Jan 19, 2020)

My experience:

- I never get the same musicality out of wet samples compared to dry samples.
- I never get the same dephth and room out of dry samples+reverb compared to wet samples.
- Chamber sized orchestras are easier to create with dry samples.
- Larger sections combined don’t merge to a compact orchestral tutti sound when using dry samples+reverb.


----------



## robgb (Jan 19, 2020)

I prefer dry or semi-dry libraries. Recorded orchestras don't sound the same as listening to a live orchestra, so getting the pizz to sound the way it does in a live hall is probably an impossible goal. My goal is to make a good recording. Herrmann would mix his orchestras in ways that would be impossible in a live orchestra because he was going for a specific effect. That's the philosophy I adhere to.


----------



## muk (Jan 20, 2020)

Thanks everyone. It's a fascinating topic for me.



Oxytoxine said:


> Example 2 is so much more pleasing. Which library is it?



It is a chamber sized ensemble that I created by stacking Berlin Strings First Chair several times. It is not easy to handle, the playability is limited, but I really like the timbre and the sound of the room.



Scamper said:


> Btw, I think your link for the Light and Sound Chamber Strings version of the Elgar example isn't right. It's the same link as for the BFC version.



Weird. Thanks for the heads up. Should be working properly now.

@Jimmy Hellfire looks like we hold pretty similar positions on this topic. I prefer dry woodwinds, but for the rest wet libraries have really grown on me, despite the lesser playability. I think @Saxer's summary is spot on.

This thread gave me an idea. It's something I haven't tried yet, nor have I heard anybody attempting it. Nextmidi are layering dry solo strings (the Audio Modeling ones) with Spitfire Symphonic Strings. Sounds lovely.

But how would it sound if we layered a few instances of dry solo strings (Berlin Strings First Chair, Emotional Violin, or a modeled offering) in such a way that for long articulations you get more of the dry layer, while for short articulations more of the wet library?

I think this will be my next experiment with strings. If it works we could get the playabilty and expressivenes of dry strings for the long articulations, and the lovely room sound for the shorts. I guess it depends on how well it works timbrally - whether there is too large a difference in timbre between longs and shorts.


----------



## richhickey (Jan 20, 2020)

muk said:


> Here is an example. My old setup with VSL Dimension Strings, all pizzicato:



What kind of reverb is on that?


----------



## muk (Jan 20, 2020)

richhickey said:


> What kind of reverb is on that?



Positioning and individual ER on each player, and then one unifying tail on everything. Independence Origami is the reverb program I used, with the same impulse response as on the Light and Sound Chamber Strings example.

Here is an in-depth description of the setup:






VSl Dimension Strings - Template Tutorial


Eh? What’s this all about? The deep sampling of VSL’s flagship strings library, the Dimension Strings, presents you with a great flexibility. You can use them in a multitude of ways, and maybe except for the larger than life sound it can be a real workhorse of a strings library. But the sheer...




vi-control.net


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 20, 2020)

Wet libraries do have a natural beautiful sound out of the box, but they drive me insane mentally. I grew up playing the piano. It's a close and intimate dry sound. Even when performing it in concert halls, I still got the players position sound. My mom would sit there with me playing guitar and singing. Again, very dry and personal. I played in the marching band lead snare. Very snappy, dry and instant. Then I played in the concert band as well, percussion and piano. I have lived my whole life being around intimate sounds. These are much more dry and up close.

I have not spent much of my life being a listener in a performance hall, quite the opposite being the player. That raw huge in your face sound of VSL instruments just hits me the right way. I struggle pushing them back more because I can't stand to do it. It sounds unnatural to me and what I am accustom to. I find that if I use a wet library, I simply have to layer VSL with it or I go insane from it sounding so washed in reverb. It's really quite amazing when you think about all the possible reasons we all like what we like. I am just so happy that so many companies give us these options. I have really been lately falling in love with the sound of the Synchron strings and SCS. I use them, and layer the dry VSL libraries on them to liking. I am very happy we have both options because I suck at reverb settings.


----------



## rottoy (Jan 20, 2020)

I really like the sound of the Synchron Strings pizz.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 20, 2020)

maestro2be said:


> Wet libraries do have a natural beautiful sound out of the box, but they drive me insane mentally. I grew up playing the piano. It's a close and intimate dry sound. Even when performing it in concert halls, I still got the players position sound. My mom would sit there with me playing guitar and singing. Again, very dry and personal. I played in the marching band lead snare. Very snappy, dry and instant. Then I played in the concert band as well, percussion and piano. I have lived my whole life being around intimate sounds. These are much more dry and up close.
> 
> I have not spent much of my life being a listener in a performance hall, quite the opposite being the player. That raw huge in your face sound of VSL instruments just hits me the right way. I struggle pushing them back more because I can't stand to do it. It sounds unnatural to me and what I am accustom to. I find that if I use a wet library, I simply have to layer VSL with it or I go insane from it sounding so washed in reverb. It's really quite amazing when you think about all the possible reasons we all like what we like. I am just so happy that so many companies give us these options. I have really been lately falling in love with the sound of the Synchron strings and SCS. I use them, and layer the dry VSL libraries on them to liking. I am very happy we have both options because I suck at reverb settings.



Very interesting that you say that. I realized that this is a huge factor for me also. Something about the overboard ambience that many people prefer just really throws me off mentally, and that seems to, among other things, have to do with how I relate to instruments.

On the other hand, one thing that obviously influences many people is how scores of movies they like sound. That's absolutely not a factor for me. I don't listen to film music, I rarely care for any of it and when watching movies, I tend to block it out (many composers make that really easy for me too). So I don't really have that benchmark. My relation to recorded orchestral music are mostly classical works, and those often tend to be crisper. Obviously I do like the depth of sound that ambient samples can produce, especially for short notes and percussion, but even here I still tend to prefer closer and drier mic blends than you will usually hear from a lot of other people.

When I see folks preaching truisms about what's good and what isn't, what you should use and what not etc., what is non-negotiable if you wanna "make it", I often feel totally thrown off and kinda alienated because my own experience and perspective are so entirely different. You're absolutely right, it's actually such a complex and personal thing as to why someone has a certain perspective on how things should sound. I often wish composers and producers had a little more balls to understand that and stand by it.


----------



## Henu (Jan 20, 2020)

I'm a huge advocate of drier samples.... until I tried to mimick 80´s Jerry Goldsmith (yes, I know, a bold statement but you get the point) styled stuff last month for a game soundtrack. 

Lucky for me, it was just a test launch and the game is now taken down for re-evaluation but when listening to the soundtrack a week after the mix the only thing that kept bouncing in my head was that how _completely detached everything sounded_ together despite of my reverbs. What I painfully learned is that the less you have stuff going on, the harder it is to create cohesion with the instruments, so when the "real" launch of the game is coming at some point, I will absolutely revisit the mix and do it from a scratch again. I should had known better. >.<


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jan 20, 2020)

I don't like super wet but I like scoring stage wet. Not the longest tail but not a dry close tone either. It's impossible to recreate a good feeling of room and tonal lushness and width just with reverb. That is especially important if you want your music to sound like proper film scores in my opinion.


----------



## NoamL (Jan 20, 2020)

This all seems similar to the "aren't you afraid of sounding like everyone with the same samples" discussion from a few weeks ago.

Allow me to make a point here  Let's examine the top 25 films of the US box office last year and see where the scores were recorded -

*AVENGERS: ENDGAME *............................ Abbey Road Studios
*THE LION KING *...................................... SONY Scoring Stage
*TOY STORY 4* .......................................... Newman Scoring Stage
*FROZEN II* .............................................. Eastwood Scoring Stage
*CAPTAIN MARVEL *................................... Abbey Road Studios
*STAR WARS EPISODE IX* ......................... SONY Scoring Stage
*SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME *.............. SONY Scoring Stage
*ALADDIN* ................................................ AIR Lyndhurst
*JOKER* .................................................... The DiMenna Center, NY
*IT CHAPTER 2 *........................................ Eastwood Scoring Stage
*JUMANJI: THE NEXT LEVEL* .................... SONY Scoring Stage
*US* ......................................................... SONY Scoring Stage
*HOBBS AND SHAW *................................ Abbey Road Studios
*JOHN WICK CHAPTER 3 *........................ ???
*HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 3 *.......... Abbey Road Studios
*THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS 2 *................. Eastwood Scoring Stage
*DETECTIVE PIKACHU* ............................ AIR Lyndhurst
*ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD *.... n/a
*SHAZAM! *............................................... AIR Lyndhurst
*AQUAMAN *............................................. Eastwood Scoring Stage
*KNIVES OUT *......................................... Abbey Road Studios
*DUMBO *................................................ AIR Lyndhurst
*MALEFICENT: MISTRESS OF EVIL *......... Abbey Road Studios
*GLASS *.................................................. ???
*GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS *.... AIR Lyndhurst
[EDIT- updated with all the data I can find]

Apart from Joker, the list is just five recording spaces - Abbey Road, AIR Lyndhurst, SONY, Eastwood, and Newman.

Even a relatively midbudget movie like Knives Out (great film btw!), $40m budget, made in the USA, not a particularly large orchestra on the score, they still go all the way to London to record.

It would be logistically easier, financially cheaper, and sonically more diverse if all the A list composers were willing to record in different places... if someone like Hans or Danny Elfman or Thomas Newman said "You know what, let's do this film at The Village"... but that will never happen. Instead all the A Listers keep jockeying to get slots at these five large, world class stages. So, maybe there's something to these places after all. Maybe we shouldn't worry about sounding the same or having "uncontrollable" ambient samples.

There is something to be said for the fact that there are *only three* sample developers, so far as we know, in the whole world have access to these spaces. Spitfire developed an orchestra at AIR, CineSamples developed an orchestra at SONY, and Audio Ollie recorded LA Modern Percussion at Eastwood. There is a lot of hype surrounding Spitfire and the supposed magic qualities of their sound but... the hype is kind of real. You truly can just set up your mics and feel like it's 80% of the way there to theater ready sound. It is not easy to replicate these spaces ITB. If it were the A-listers would be doing it.

I do still love some libraries that weren't recorded at these places, just because the musicality and the sample-programming is so good. An example is Cinematic Strings 2 which was recorded at Verbrugghen Hall. It's not an in demand space, just the main concert hall at the University of Sydney, but the musicians are really on the ball and create a great, emotionally communicative sound in each of the samples. But, it's more work... careful comparison and EQ and reverb... to get it to sound "Hollywood." The problem I have with some sampled orchestras is this load of marketing which surpasses Spitfire for sure. For example EastWest "Hollywood" Orchestra recorded at Cello Studios which was never in demand for big Hollywood scores as far as I can tell from researching... it's a storied space for pop music but it's no Todd AO or MGM... Or for example the supposed acoustic properties of Teldex - it _does_ sound good! but it hardly gets any American film work _at all_.


----------



## erica-grace (Jan 20, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Allow me to make a point here  Let's examine the top 25 films of the US box office last year and see where the scores were recorded -



And what do all of those spaces have in common? They are large, ambient spaces that do not produce a dry sound. There is a reason that orchestras are recorded in large, ambient spaces. And here we are, saying, _I prefer dry libraries_. 

Good post Noam - thank you for the info


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 20, 2020)

well they also have world class equipment and treatment on site, excellent control rooms ect. 

that's potentially just as important to be able to monitor correctly and reliably, as well as having tools to potentially correct sounds before you track them.


----------



## BlackDorito (Jan 20, 2020)

erica-grace said:


> And here we are, saying, _I prefer dry libraries_.


Because not everyone is going for a Hollywood sound. All the same, fascinating info Noam, thanks for gathering. Still, we can enjoy the benefits of a Spitfire all-AIR template even if we are not aspiring to create a film score ... everything just sits together and we don't lose lots of time/energy trying to blend disparate VIs into something that sounds cohesive. 

On the dry side, since my only dry libraries are VSL, I have found that creating a sonically-believable small ensemble within a small space using VSL/MIR is certainly doable (MIR tweaking required) but blending with other libs can be challenging. However I have found that blending wet libraries together is fun and easy - minimal tweaking. Recently I've started experimenting with blending VSL string libraries into a base of wet strings, and the results are encouraging.


----------



## CT (Jan 20, 2020)

NoamL said:


> This all seems similar to the "aren't you afraid of sounding like everyone with the same samples" discussion from a few weeks ago.
> 
> Allow me to make a point here  Let's examine the top 25 films of the US box office last year and see where the scores were recorded -
> 
> ...



Yes.


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 20, 2020)

erica-grace said:


> And what do all of those spaces have in common? They are large, ambient spaces that do not produce a dry sound. There is a reason that orchestras are recorded in large, ambient spaces. And here we are, saying, _I prefer dry libraries_.
> 
> Good post Noam - thank you for the info



They sure do, but that doesn't mean I have to like that sound. Sheep will be sheep though . *I still prefer dry libraries *. Not everyone is interested in big fat wet sloppy sound stacked with ostinatos and 48 horns, regardless of "who" they are that recorded "in that godly divine only the best record here" space. It's simply a list of "film soundtracks". Have we really reduced ourselves to the point that true classical musical performances are no longer even valued? They to have spent their lives mastering their craft. Oh that's right, that's who we call upon when we want it to sound that good, more importantly than the room!

My guess is that list would change for pure classical and orchestral pieces that are not attached to a film and my ears don't seem to have an issue with those places that aren't listed above. In fact, the crystal clear and emotional sound that comes from those places not listed above suit my taste just fine. I have never sat there going, oh wow!! This MUST have been done in Abbey Road Studios!! No wonder it's so good!....

It is possible, had I only been a listener all my life (or a critic who has no actual musical ability) sitting in the crowd near the back exit door that my opinion would be different. I guess that also applies to only ever hearing things from the position of a midi keyboard passing judgement. What a shame that would have been.


----------



## CT (Jan 20, 2020)

Pretty sure exceptional acoustic spaces are a big deal for classical musicians as well. The list would be slightly different but rest assured those two London venues would be on both.


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 20, 2020)

No argument there. I would completely agree the acoustical space is a big deal. It just doesn't need to always be a 120+ piece orchestra in a large space. Small quartets and Smaller chamber orchestras perform in much smaller venues and the sound is absolutely on par with the sounds of the halls listed above in respect to their size and the repertoire. The point was simply that regardless of what others say, people have valid and good reasons to love more intimate and dry instruments. Not everyone is making trailers for movies. I also personally find it difficult to get the agility a dry library provides from a wet library in my experiences. Acceptable trade offs I guess.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 20, 2020)

erica-grace said:


> And what do all of those spaces have in common? They are large, ambient spaces that do not produce a dry sound. There is a reason that orchestras are recorded in large, ambient spaces. And here we are, saying, _I prefer dry libraries_.
> 
> Good post Noam - thank you for the info



It's not like they hanged one mic from the ceiling and recorded all the stuff there. You can still have a "drier" and "closer" as well as a more distant, ambient sound recorded in those spaces.

I don't think anyone here believes there are orchestras recorded in living rooms. The discussion is more about "is aping a typical Hollywood sound all I need/care about when making music"?


----------



## CT (Jan 20, 2020)

I think the only issue I take with this never-ending discussion is the recurring idea that somehow dry=classical and wet=Hollywood. Many classical recordings I have are wetter than your average film score.

The three big Hollywood stages are spacious but not terribly reverberant or anything. It's a studio sound. AIR and Abbey Road are far more "wet." Lots of classical recordings done at the latter two. Can't think of very many done at any of the Hollywood ones. Hell, even the recent Avengers done at Abbey Road is closer and punchier than some classical stuff I've heard there.

Scoring stages are typically built or treated to be tame and unobtrusive. The most popular classical recording venues in, say, London and Berlin, are churches, very large studios, or concert halls painstakingly designed for an impressive and immersive acoustic experience.

Not sure where this reversed interpretation of things comes from other than some prominent AIR/Abbey film scores, and VI marketing.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jan 20, 2020)

From mic techniques that change the style of the direct signal stereo image, to the hard or diffuse early reflections of various room sizes, to the timbre and decay properties of the long tail... It might be too simple to just say "I prefer a drier orchestral sound".

Funkhaus is a great example, the room is like 900 sq meters I think? Early reflections arrive so late that the direct sound actually is more crisp and clear and the end result can actually feel more dry in some ways.

I think there's been enough of a spectrum like this in film music too. Think of the studio dryness of older silver era movies. Also, I feel like a lot of recent scores don't always have such an obvious drenched tail during parts with dense, busy orchestration.

The mixing and music itself has a lot to do with whether it feels wet, too. Bells up brass is unavoidably going to sound drier because the brightness makes the direct signal stand out more. A solo flute may end up sounding very wet on the same mics and then the mixer brings in more if the solo mic too, which changes the equation again...

So for all these reasons I personally have a hard time relating to the wet vs dry preference. Makes more sense to just love all of them for what they accomplish.

As for the original post, I agree about the challenges of mixing dry libraries but strings always felt the most forgiving because of the spread out positioning of the ensemble. As a result, early reflections never needed to be as precise as they do with solo instruments. EQ seemed to make a more important difference to me. I dunno, maybe the next time I try to mix strings, I'll have a different opinion again.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 21, 2020)

Putting aside the arguments about sound (subjective) and playability (moving target) - my preference is always for a wet library simply due to ease of use. Fader up > nice sound > let's do music.

I don't have the extra mental bandwidth to "create the space" as well as write the notes and I'll sacrifice control over the sound every time for that immediacy.

I'll stress though that this is a very personal position and not a "my way is best" statement as I don't want to fuel the ongoing war.


----------



## Mike Fox (Jan 21, 2020)

I've become a fan of mixing wet string libraries that have larger sections with dryer libraries that have smaller sections. The effect is you get the detail of the smaller section strings with the space, and depth of the larger section.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 21, 2020)

Mike Fox said:


> I've become a fan of mixing wet string libraries that have larger sections with dryer libraries that have smaller sections. The effect is you get the detail of the smaller section strings with the space, and depth of the larger section.



I like that method a lot too. It's almost like adding in some extra close mics for the texture and detail, while also adding more variance due to an entirely different sample set. Granted, it's considerably more work, but ideally it results in a more lively as well as more unique sound.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Jan 21, 2020)

miket said:


> I think the only issue I take with this never-ending discussion is the recurring idea that somehow dry=classical and wet=Hollywood. Many classical recordings I have are wetter than your average film score.
> 
> The three big Hollywood stages are spacious but not terribly reverberant or anything. It's a studio sound. AIR and Abbey Road are far more "wet." Lots of classical recordings done at the latter two. Can't think of very many done at any of the Hollywood ones. Hell, even the recent Avengers done at Abbey Road is closer and punchier than some classical stuff I've heard there.
> 
> ...


Agreed. People get tribal about the craziest stuff.


----------



## muk (Jan 21, 2020)

The focus on the recording venue is oddly specific. If you can distinguish by ear at which studio a library has been recorded, the more power to you. The blind tests on this board suggest that it is very difficult to know for sure which library is which, even in the exposed context of these tests. Let alone in a full mockup.

Dry vs wet libraries though I am confident that these can be told apart more easily, at least on the sounds with strong transients.

That being said, I wish a developer would offer a library that was recorded with a classical symphony music background, instead of hollywood blockbuster, which most developers go for. Usually dry libraries are recommended for this, but like miket I don't quite get it. No classical cd I know of has ever been recorded the way VSL, or Sample Modeling, recorded their libraries. So why should it be better suited for classical music than hollywood blockbuster? Maybe you need that approach to get the expressiveness and control? But I do think that the tradeoff is in the sound.

As an eq can not boost what isn't there, a reverb can not create that natural bloom around a short note. I guess that is a key takeaway for me. It might be trivial, but I found that I am less inclined to accept a tradeoff with this. Simply because - well, listen to the two pizz ensembles in my first post and you know why.


----------



## CT (Jan 21, 2020)

I agree completely, muk. 

I do think it isn't too hard to distinguish the sound of certain rooms from recordings, though, but when it comes to samples, I'm not surprised that it's far less obvious to the ear.

And by the way... there is a great recently released library with a classical symphony vibe.


----------



## shawnsingh (Jan 21, 2020)

Is there really that much difference between classical and Hollywood wetness? What is the difference? I think the midi programming, composition, and orchestration would make 99% of the difference.


----------



## CT (Jan 21, 2020)

I think the biggest difference is in how things are mic'd and mixed. Film music uses a lot more close/spot sound than classical, even if the acoustics of the spaces are similar or the same.


----------



## muk (Jan 21, 2020)

shawnsingh said:


> I think the midi programming, composition, and orchestration would make 99% of the difference.



True, composition and orchestration are different. But I think there are differences in the sound as well.



miket said:


> I think the biggest difference is in how things are mic'd and mixed. Film music uses a lot more close/spot sound than classical, even if the acoustics of the spaces are similar or the same.



Agree very much with this. I too think that things are engineered differently. And that's partly why I concluded that BBC SO you alluded to above is not for me. True, they recorded a classical symphony orchestra. The concept and execution (including the recording technique), however, to me do not look classical at all. That's why I decided that it will not bring me closer to the sound I want than the libraries I already own, and thus didn't buy it.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jan 21, 2020)

At least we have the luxury with all the libs available to use the best of both worlds. Even in the days where I used Dimension Strings as my main library I never considered the pizzicato very usable and didn't even try to get them working. At least in standalone. I always turned to Albion Loegria or even Hollywood Strings for that. And nobody cared. So I don't think we have to be puristic with wet-dry. Do we?


----------



## CT (Jan 21, 2020)

muk said:


> The concept and execution (including the recording technique), however, to me do not look classical at all.



While there are a number of microphone and mix options that are obviously more geared towards a cinematic sound and thus overkill for someone without any interest in them, I'm finding that the Tree and occasional Mids provide a beautifully "classical" sound! There is an immense sonic flexibility in this.


----------



## Reid Rosefelt (Jan 21, 2020)

NoamL said:


> This all seems similar to the "aren't you afraid of sounding like everyone with the same samples" discussion from a few weeks ago.
> 
> Allow me to make a point here  Let's examine the top 25 films of the US box office last year and see where the scores were recorded -
> 
> ...


Isn't there a difference between recording a real orchestra in a real space and the task of either: 

1. Using virtual instruments to sound like a real orchestra (an impossible dream)

2. Using virtual instruments to create something musical and beautiful that reflects the composer's intentions. 

If you are open to choice #2, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's whatever floats your boat. I'll let you scamps tussle over what is "best." I'll just keep making music that sounds good to my ears.

Nobody seems to be mentioning the highly experienced and gifted engineers and producers that can be found lurking about these world-class recording spaces. That is a good reason why people feel comfortable coming back to these places again and again. I could also say that a lot of the biggest films ever were shot at Pinewood. I've worked on a movie at Pinewood and there's nothing magical about the stages (they're just big enough for a Bond villain's lair) but there is something breathtaking about the British department heads and craftspeople who came to work there. 

If I was dumb enough to try to recreate the sound of the Beatles, I bet I'd have better luck using practically any quality software with George Martin and Geoff Emerick sitting in front of my computer, over using the Waves Abbey Road plugins.


----------



## muk (Jan 22, 2020)

miket said:


> While there are a number of microphone and mix options that are obviously more geared towards a cinematic sound and thus overkill for someone without any interest in them, I'm finding that the Tree and occasional Mids provide a beautifully "classical" sound! There is an immense sonic flexibility in this.



Miket, would it be possible for you to share a short pizzicato-example of this mic combination? Nothing complicated, just maybe some notes on the first violins, and then some chords of the whole orchestra. I would be really interested to hear how that compares to the other examples.


----------



## CT (Jan 22, 2020)

Yes, I can send you that later today. It would really just be the Tree though, because the Mids are more focused on the rest of the ensemble. I'll keep them on though, as it functions basically like another "spill" mic in that context.


----------



## muk (Jan 22, 2020)

Thank you @miket, I appreciate it.


----------



## CT (Jan 22, 2020)

You can even send me the MIDI of your examples if you'd like; simple short notes won't need a huge amount of translation to another library.


----------



## ptram (Jan 22, 2020)

muk said:


> That being said, I wish a developer would offer a library that was recorded with a classical symphony music background, instead of hollywood blockbuster, which most developers go for. Usually dry libraries are recommended for this, but like miket I don't quite get it. No classical cd I know of has ever been recorded the way VSL, or Sample Modeling, recorded their libraries.


There is a difference between creating tools for music and recording music. I would make the analogy of making a violin or a piano, tools created by listening to the details of their sound and the sound of each or their parts, and not how they sound in a concert hall. They are "dry libraries", to whom ambience is added when played in a concert hall. A different ambience, depending on the venue.

Paolo


----------



## CT (Jan 22, 2020)

Muk, here's a little bit of BBCSO pizzicato, with the sections and then leaders.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jan 23, 2020)

muk said:


> So where does that leave us? Unsurprisingly, I think that choosing dry or wet according to the task you set yourself is the best way to go at the moment. If you need short sounds with present transients, I don't think that dry libraries can hold up with wet ones. For woodwinds, dry libraries work great for me. For strings, I am going to choose depending on what I need to do. For brass and percussion, I think the wet libraries have an advantage.
> 
> Anyway, I am curious to hear where you guys and gals are at with this.



Well I think you have come to the same conclusion I did years ago. One of my big problems before the libraries got so good was trying to get all the various patches I had VSL, Siedlecek, Miroslav and some bespoke ones to sound consistent with each other.

My preference is also to have some ER baked in. Mostly this comes from setting the mic's back a little bit. But generally I try to blend libs together. I use program changes to switch articulations and I can mix libs by choosing a program change that has patches loaded in the instrument bank being played simultaneously by the same midi channel. Spitfire and LASS blend very well.

A few years ago I took the demos I made for Spitfire and turned them into a Suite for Strings and recorded them with the LSO with almost the same line up and with the same engineer and mic positioning that Spitfire used. It was an interesting experiment. We missed covering a spot in one section and when I was mixing I patched it with mockup. Even I couldn't tell you which spot that was now.

I think the upshot is; completely wet does make for some inflexibility but with immediately satisfying and perfect sound. Drier libs are much harder to make sound good but can be more versatile. Thus - it's horses for courses.


----------



## muk (Jan 23, 2020)

Thank you @miket! Sounds very good to my ears. Nice spatial information without being too wet. A very nice sound indeed.

@stevenson-again you recorded with the LSO? How cool is that! Must have been a fantastic experience.
I concur about the baked in ERs.


----------



## stevenson-again (Jan 24, 2020)

muk said:


> Thank you @miket! Sounds very good to my ears. Nice spatial information without being too wet. A very nice sound indeed.
> 
> @stevenson-again you recorded with the LSO? How cool is that! Must have been a fantastic experience.
> I concur about the baked in ERs.



Yeah - it was fun. TBH they are a bit macho about how well they can sight read. They can - incredibly well - but we could have gotten more done if they actually looked at the parts I sent to them well in advance of the session. Some of them said they wished they had seen them before the recording....so what do you do...

Here is the first movement done with them:



...and here is the the mock-up I did for Spitfire. Note - the spitfire version is not properly mastered. If it were, it would match better. IMO it really shows how far we've come and what there is to go. OTH, this was written to show off the Spitfire libraries strengths so there is that:


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 24, 2020)

stevenson-again said:


> Yeah - it was fun. TBH they are a bit macho about how well they can sight read. They can - incredibly well - but we could have gotten more done if they actually looked at the parts I sent to them well in advance of the session. Some of them said they wished they had seen them before the recording....so what do you do...
> 
> Here is the fist movement done with them:
> 
> ...



Wow, great work and such an interesting comparison to have. Thanks!


----------



## Tonezou (May 23, 2020)

Sorry guys if I didn't get the "big picture" from all the answers, but can someone please summarize what would be the cons and pros of wet vs dry in terms of usability and techniques in scoring (like for example big open movie scenes are definitely best "described" with wet samples and very close-up or scary scenes with dry). I am trying to understand the rules and general peoples' likeability when using wet vs dry samples. I read everything here and I am still confused, since I am not a pro in this area yet. I would appreciate some examples too. Again, sorry if I misunderstood something or failed to understand everything about wet vs dry in scoring on the internet.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 24, 2020)

I think Stevenson-again said it well. It’s easier to make wetter libraries sound good but you have less control.

I prefer to work with drier libraries because I like having more control of the ambiance


----------



## Casiquire (May 24, 2020)

stevenson-again said:


> Yeah - it was fun. TBH they are a bit macho about how well they can sight read. They can - incredibly well - but we could have gotten more done if they actually looked at the parts I sent to them well in advance of the session. Some of them said they wished they had seen them before the recording....so what do you do...
> 
> Here is the first movement done with them:
> 
> ...




Interesting, shorts were mentioned as part of the reason wet libraries are better but in this comparison shorts are the glaring weakness

In my opinion dry libraries get me where i want to be. I'm a very careful buyer so I don't have as much experience with wet libraries, but even the few purchases I've made of wet libraries are just too wet and lose clarity, unless I dial in a decent amount of close mic...in which case the room is speaking more gently in the first place and then just adding a subtle reverb to a dry library is no longer a sub-par compromise


----------



## jaketanner (May 24, 2020)

NoamL said:


> It would be logistically easier, financially cheaper, and sonically more diverse if all the A list composers were willing to record in different places


From what I remember, certain out of country locations use local musicians...this doe snot entitle them to royalties after. I believe that some times it's not the space to why they record there, it's keeping the backend...I believe Lucas is one of those that purposely do this...so I've read.


----------



## jaketanner (May 24, 2020)

SO a dry library was still recorded in a space of sorts...it would have to be in order to get some nice tone out of it...the room sound is the majority of the beauty. So while they are dry, most are not recorded in a vocal booth type isolation...it's just a less reverberant space, like Studio 1 (spitfire)...but a good quality convolution reverb like Altiverb or SPACES II will give you a decent space...then it's your setting that also affect how it reacts...pre delay, reverb tail, EQ, early reflections..etc etc...all these need to be dialed in...can't just throw a reverb on and call it good.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (May 24, 2020)

I think dry libraries are clearly superior. 

Until you need wet libraries.

Objectively seen, wet libraries are of course the best. Unless you need dry ones.


----------



## ceemusic (May 24, 2020)

I prefer dry or short reverb. Keep in mind with baked in reverb in that when one you eq an instrument you're also changing the reverb.
Also the basic reverb mixing technique of cutting an instruments resonant freq. out of the reverb won't work.

Too bad Spitfire can't do something along the lines of MIR using DRY samples.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 29, 2020)

The issue is not really wet/dry, it is the ER's and mic positioning. You have the same problems with "wet" samples that have been recorded too close. In order for the sound to sound "natural" there needs to be space between the instrument and microphone to allow for the differing rates at which frequencies energy dissipate through space. We emulate that with eq's and compression, but it's just easier if it the samples were recorded that way in the first place - but you sacrifice flexibility and you also increase the noise floor.

I'd stop short of saying the room is the "majority" of the beauty however...it's just easier to get the samples to sit right if there is some room based in there. It's much more convincing with less effort.

From a creative/artistic POV, generally we use more and longer reverbs when we want an epic quality and less when we want a grittier more intimate quality. Sometimes we use long reverbs and lower amount or attenuated high frequencies when we want a dreamy intimate sound. High frequencies are associated with high energy. Your classic Thomas Newman sound is with a piano played softly, with lots of high frequencies rolled off, which emulates even softer playing.


----------



## DimensionsTomorrow (Sep 25, 2020)

I’m curious what people feel are some of the best dry libraries.


----------



## muk (Dec 22, 2021)

Added Sonokinetic Orchestral Strings to the comparison. Out of all the examples I like this new one the best currently.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 22, 2021)

muk said:


> Added Sonokinetic Orchestral Strings to the comparison. Out of all the examples I like this new one the best currently.


Thanks for sharing these.

I love the way SOS sounds, they are very realistic, and natural sounding to my ears, with a very beautiful timbre, the library is imho. a Gem !

I haven't used it much, since I just purchased it a week ago, so I need to dive into it, and spend a good amount of quality time with it.


----------



## GtrString (Dec 22, 2021)

I like a dry/wet sound, like with guitars. So to achieve that fidelity and definition with the mix, there needs to be an array of both wet/dry sounds and instruments with both close/far mics. 

Wet libraries sounds great, but, and especially if they are full service (strings, bones, winds & perc), it doesn't make sense to have it all wet. It's fine to have some strings and percussion wet, but then I would like to mix with drier bones or woods, or vice versa.

It's all good, but all is not always good.


----------

