What's new

Do you compose wet or dry?

Always after a shower; so wet.

But I try to avoid artificial reverb, actually. I just use the microphone positions as much as possible. I just like how that sounds better.

But the piano patch I use to compose with has a reverb on it by default, but since it's just for sketching out the composition and part-writing, I don't worry about the reverb on it. So "wet", for me.
 
As @Replicant, I try to rely as much as possible on the microphone positions and sometimes add a tiny touch of global reverb during the mixing process. But when I'm programming, I like to use only the spot mics, because it allows me to fine-tune the attacks and timing of each note with more precision. Once my mockup sounds as good as possible with the close mics, I load the other microphones and mess with the volumes to find a realistic balance with the Tree and Room mics.
 
Interesting comments. Depends a lot on the library exactly how much reverb gets in there, but I write so that I'm hearing what I'm sending.

So, wet. Delays and everything.
 
I try to achieve a Naturally Rich Acoustic Environment = more Wet than dry, but this must be done tastefully, to sound as realistic as possible, and make the instruments come alive, and sound very rich, and natural.
 
Last edited:
Always wet, it gives me the sense of where it would sit in an actual room, a part could sound really bad dry, but a natural reverb can really bring it to life and make it sound great. I’ve tried composing dry when I’m lazy and don’t want to set up my reverb sends, but it always sounds bad to me and I immediately put on reverb.
 
Composing wet, arranging/orchestrating/producing dry.

When strictly composing/ demoing, a more "glueing" sound will inspire me more with musical ideas and keep my flow going. When I start doing the final version, I always start it from scratch and do it as dry as possible (before mix) to spot all flaws in orchestration, arranging and instrumentation.
 
If it's dry stuff like CH, EWH, BHOT (and those dry libraries solely within the project) then I'll slap Revelation or QL Spaces on the bus...but just enough to get a hint of concert hall ambience. It's seductively easy to overdo it.
 
Between wet an dry. I disable my tail sends while arranging, because the tail would make things sound too good, and fool me. I don't need inspiration while arranging since the composition was already set up on piano and short score beforehand (I just need inspiration when I'm on the piano). So essentially, I arrange with close and tree mic-setups, without reverb. I reactivate the reverb at the mixing stage. The advantage being I overestimate a bit less the quality of the music because of the quality of the sound.

(Concerning the composition stage, I don't even do that on a computer.)
 
It might be the most basic of questions but I'm curious to know whether people tend to compose (and/or orchestrate) with reverb or whether this is best left to the mixing stage - and the benefits of doing it either way?
It depends.

I find having all the effects going (including reverb) can be inspiring and actually help with the direction of the piece --because I generally write everything impromptu. So if I am writing hoping to be inspired, I will have various effects going.
If I'm arranging a piece which I have already composed (very rare), then I will definitely turn down or off the effects. Still nice to have a little bit at least.
 
Wet, but it took me a long time to get to the point where I wasn't overdoing the reverb or stopping to waste time on tweaking the reverb.
 
Depends how dry dry is. With Spitfire libraries I can compose dry (meaning without reverb). With VSL I have to compose wet because I just can't get inspired by that bone dry sound. I need to hear something close to a finished sound while I'm working.

If I am purely composing using just a piano patch or something, I don't care about wet or dry because I'm only focusing on notes, harmonies, tempo and beats.
 
Top Bottom