Dry vs. Wet

[Max 154]

I know I risk sounding ignorant by asking this, but can someone please explain dry recording vs. wet recording or provide some examples that illustrate the difference?

I listen to both Williams and Giacchino, and even though Wallin is complained about a lot here, I don't think I can really tell a difference in their recording styles--not enough for it to seriously bother me, at least. What is it about the recording styles that makes them different?

[Jay 46,244]

In (most) Wallin recorded Giacchino scores, the microphones are placed very close to all the instruments, meaning you lose all sense of room size and ambience, you're just hearing the instruments and nothing else.

Somebody will be able to explain it better than me.

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

Wet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOcaeFyyYMM

Vs.

Dry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhIxFFM7Lw

[Datameister 2,586]

In the most general sense, "wet" just means that you're hearing a lot of a given effect/filter/modification/whatever, and "dry" means you're hearing more of the unaltered sound. A lot of the time, it's reverb or ambient room sound we're talking about. If an album has a wetter sound, you'll be able to hear the music echoing, essentially. An extremely dry recording usually sounds like it was recorded in a tiny room with foam walls - which is indeed sometimes the case.

If you don't hear a difference between the sound of the instruments in Williams and Giacchino scores, that's not a bad thing. But generally, Williams scores (especially more recent ones) tend to have a fuller, wetter sound. There's something else that makes them sound different (aside from compositional styles), but I can't quite figure out what it is.

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

Yeah, Giacchino's brass seems a bit more "fat" compared to Williams "thin" brass.

[Jay 46,244]

But generally, Williams scores (especially more recent ones) tend to have a fuller, wetter sound.

Right. You know how you can hear the soloists breathing in Lincoln and War Horse, and creaking chairs and stuff? You'll never hear that in a Wallin-recorded Giacchino score.

[Pieter Boelen 1,032]

So... Wet is echo-y and dry is not?

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

But you do hear "string air" or whatever the real term is for when you hear that weird sound under a string sustain.

[Quintus 6,496]

Always preferred it wet. Goldsmith recordings are my favourite in that regard.

[publicist 4,650]

So... Wet is echo-y and dry is not?

I guess the original STAR WARS main title is rather dry.

As is Goldsmith's GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (all Tomlinson).

James Horner since ca. DEEP IMPACT sounds wetter than a catholic schoolgirl on prom night.

[Brónach 1,330]

I don't have a preference, it depends a bit of the style of the music itself, of the performance, or something.

[Ollie 1,375]

I like both. I've never had a problem with Wallin's recordings.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

So... Wet is echo-y and dry is not?

In the broadest sense, yes.

Love the "wet" sound of the LOTR scores.

[Quintus 6,496]

Sod it, I'm gonna have to listen to The Big Jump now.

[A24 5,156]

Wet is also "unaltered", unless reverb is added to the recording (which is actually done a lot). 'Dry' is when you hardly hear the room, hall or studio in which the music is recorded, or reverb.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

Isn't Abbey Road supposed to be very dry?

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

I hate really, really, really wet recordings where the notes start to lose definition.

where you hear too much of "The Room" and not enough of "The Music".

[A24 5,156]

Talking about Abbey Road Studios, there's a difference between the mix of The Phantom Menace regular and The Phantom Menace UE. The latter sounds much dryer (and better, IMO).

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

The TPM Album is very "Murphy", the UE is brighter and dryer.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 12,386]

The OST sounds like they added some reverb.

[Jay 46,244]

The Phantom Menace UE sounds like it's right of the mixing board of the studio, just the untouched film mixes.

Then the OST CD sounds like after assembling the sections desired for the OST, they re-EQed the whole thing and added reverb.... it sounds muddled, harder to hear the definition of the instruments.

You can hear every instrument perfectly in the UE, it's one of the best sounding CDs I have.

[A24 5,156]

We should thank our lucky stars that they were too lazy to give the UE the same treatment.

Alex

[Marian Schedenig 11,694]

Isn't Abbey Road supposed to be very dry?

Recording studios will usually have a drier sound than your average concert hall I assume. But in general rooms vary lot. For example, the famous Golden Hall at Vienna's Musikverein is famous for its sound, which is quite on the wet side (so much that it seems to me some orchestras overplay the hall, losing transparency), while on the other hand the great hall at the Konzerthaus, just a few minutes away, has a rather dry sound, as has the State Opera (where too much orchestral reverb would probably make it harder to hear the singers).

[Max 154]

Wet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOcaeFyyYMM

Vs.

Dry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhIxFFM7Lw

Could you say that, based off of those two videos, wet recordings sound "softer" than dry recordings?

Now that I think about it, when I first started listening to Giacchino, that was something that initially bothered me. I don't hear it so much now, but his music sounded sharper, almost harsher, than Williams's music does.

Thanks everyone!

[Rachael Foley 10,162]

Wet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOcaeFyyYMM

Vs.

Dry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbhIxFFM7Lw

Could you say that, based off of those two videos, wet recordings sound "softer" than dry recordings?

I think you are referring to Bright vs. Dark, or Warm Vs. Cold.

[Uni 307]

I know I risk sounding ignorant by asking this, but can someone please explain dry recording vs. wet recording or provide some examples that illustrate the difference?

It was more than a risk. You just went ahead and exposed your ignorance for everyone to see. Wow.

Well, now I can go ahead and thank you for doing so . . . because I've been wondering for quite some time now what the HELL the difference is between the whole "wet" and "dry" recording thing. (Yup.) I just never got around to asking. Now I get it!

So thanks!

- Uni

[Sharkissimo 1,978]

But generally, Williams scores (especially more recent ones) tend to have a fuller, wetter sound. There's something else that makes them sound different (aside from compositional styles), but I can't quite figure out what it is.

With Williams circa 1989, it's synth doubling.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,110]

The most simple and intuitive explanation:

Imagine you are singing in a giant old stone cathedral.

Now imagine you are singing inside a closet filled with clothes.

Sound in the cathedral is wet. Sound in the closet is dry.

In technical terms wetness is a function of reverb, delay/echo, and decay. Reverb is really fast and rapid echo (all reaching your ear within .1 s of the original sound). Echo/delay is a slower more distinct repetition of a sound long after the original sound. Decay is how long it takes for the sound/reverb/echo to die out.

[Uni 307]

What if I'm singing underwater? The enclosed acoustics would suggest dry, but . . . y'know. . . .

- Uni

[Sharkissimo 1,978]

That would be like applying a Low Pass Filter.

[Pieter Boelen 1,032]

What if I'm singing underwater? The enclosed acoustics would suggest dry, but . . . y'know. . . .

[Uni 307]

That would be like applying a Low Pass Filter.

The man with the answer for everything. . . .

- Uni

[Code 000. Destruct. 0. 4,262]

Reading through the massive "preface" to Ives' fourth symphony by both the composer and others, I came across this, which I will now refer people to when justifying my taste for occasionally heavy reverb.