sample sets - dry or wet?

[ofnicolson]

Hi everyone,

I'm considering investing in another sample set (possibly the Zwolle) and I'm trying to decide whether to go for the wet version or the dry. In the latter case, I'd use Pristine Space/Reaper to add reverb. My setup is a home practice organ with stereo speakers/headphones.

In practical terms, the dry seems more appealing as
- it requires less memory and is presumably faster to load
- I have complete control over the reverb and can tweak it to suit me or the room I perform in
- (minor point) technically, it would seem that Impulse Response processing may actually provide a more accurate reverb effect than live samples, as the "real" reverb will vary continuously according to how long any note is held.

I'd appreciate any general thoughts or recommendations other users have. Also, does anyone have experience of both wet and dry versions of the Zwolle? Does one sound more convincing/fun to play than the other?

Many thanks,
Ollie

[gingercat]

An additional benefit of dry samples is the increased polyphony you gain by Hauptwerk not needing to play lengthy release samples.

I currently own both the dry and wet Skinner organs, and have decided that I much prefer the dry set - the sound is just much more realistic across all playing styles.

It doesn't necessarily follow that dry samples take less memory than wet ones, because the sample set maker may chose to make use of the availeble memory by using multiple loops/attacks/releases per sample.

[Gert]

Hi Ollie,
I have both, Zwolle Dry and Wet.

For home usage, I have a big preference for a Wet (or Surround) sample set because the sound quality of a Dry sample set is mostly not better than a (very nice) digital organ. May be the cause is that I don't have an optimal reverb, I use the reverb of my sound card (EMU 1616M). With a Dry sample set you are more flexible and you can create a more perfect (fine tuned on the room) sound, but with that not a reproduction of the original organ.

See: http://www.pcorgan.com/Benodigdheden2EN.html#WetDry

Best regards,
Gert
www.PCorgan.com
info@PCorgan.com

[honza]

Hi Gert
I understand your opinion, but...For my home playing I still prefer wet samples. But some time ago I have experimented with Prague baroque (Sonusparadisi). I compared wet and dry versions. I use Reaper and I add reverb via impulse responses, supplied by sample producer. Compared with wet samples, it surprised me, that the result was the same for my ears. Besides memory saving, dry samples are better from one point of view: there is no audible step between short and long samples ( multirelease), so the result is even more natural. But I only speak about impulse responses taken in original space. With reverbs from sound card it really sounds ...awfully.

[Eric Sagmuller]

To my ears convolution (IR) reverb sounds wonderfully natural, even on complex sounds (many ranks playing). A DSP reverb, at least the one I have, sounds quite nice on single ranks especially flutes, when playing only on note at a time. The more notes that are added though the more artificial it sounds. The principal chorus sounds really bad.

In addition to what was mentioned above for wet samples, although they sound very nice, I don't like the fact that all of the reverb is coming out of the main speakers. With convolution it is very easy to adjust how much in what speakers, using multiple IR's.

[micdev]

Hi Eric,

I'm using both kind of samples; for the wet samples, just like you I find that all the sound coming from front speaker is not natural.

What I did was to create an Aux-Mix channel ( http://www.hauptwerk.com/clientuploads/documentation/CurrentUserGuide/UserGuideRedirects/AudioRouting.pdf see by the end of the page). Then I set for each of my output channels "Aux-send 1" to my Aux-Mix channel.

The Aux-mix channel is send to 2 speakers (back of the room). I can adjust the level to my liking, even pass that channel thru Gigapulse or an other convolution reverb software to add or shpae the reverb. The result is wonderful, surrounding you with sound and remove that "all in your face reverb effect"

François

[micdev]

Another thing to consider is "how easy" it is to add reverb to a dry sample.

If you're using Hw 32 on a 32 bit system there are a few solutions available. But you have to be careful because you might end up with not enough memory and CPU.

On my stand-alone XP32 (P4 3.0), when running 3 instances of an IR, the CPU is close to 50%. My Gigastudio/gigapulse set up use close to 200 Mb/ram. Reaper + Pristine space, close to 80 Megs. So on a 32 bits system already limited to +/- 3 Gigs that's some previous ram lost.

On a 64 bits system, ram is less of a problem, and probably CPU is more powerful (my new system uses a Q9450 Quad), but this time the problem is to find a true 64 bits software + plug-in to add reverb.

Being a brand new 64 bits users, there is, I'm sure solutions for the 64 bits environnement and would love to hear from 64bits experts their advice.

Finally there is the hardware solution.... but not sure of the quality and flexibility of such a system. For the price, might as well use the $$ for an extra low-cost computer + software to run Reaper + plug-in out of the Hw box.

[Vladimir Ratkovsky]

[quote="Gert"]Hi Ollie,
I have both, Zwolle Dry and Wet.

For home usage, I have a big preference for a Wet (or Surround) sample set because the sound quality of a Dry sample set is mostly not better than a (very nice) digital organ. May be the cause is that I don't have an optimal reverb, I use the reverb of my sound card (EMU 1616M).

Dear Gert,
I have the same card, with the same reverb and the sound created with that reverb hurts my ears.... Playing a dry sample (I have Litomysl) with reverb of that card is .....very far from expectations.... That reverb is a piece of joke. I purchased that card especially because it has a reverb, but I am not using that reverb at all.
I assume that uncomparably better results can be achieved using Reaper + Voxengo pristine space + impulse responses.

[ofnicolson]

Thanks all for your advice - much appreciated.
Ollie

[jds]

If you're interested in sitting down and playing the organ in a decent sound space without tinkering I would recommend a Wet sample set.

I own a number of Wet sample sets and find them to be very realistic, CD quality recordings where the organ fills and decays inside the room it was designed for. Multi-release sample sets are a must.

I have a couple of Dry sample sets where I find myself constantly tweaking and tinkering with gadgets to make them sound realistic with minimal expense. That, to me, distracts from practice and enjoyment of the organ. They sound like an electronic organ.

There are no problems with possibility of Dry sample sets. Theatre organ, continuo works very well with Dry. I prefer classic with Wet.

David

[Johannes Sørensen]

Different peoples preferences are not the same.
Of different reasons I prefor dry sample sets also in my living room.
But how can another person use my preference in his or her decision?

Dry or wet is a discussion that come up again and again at intervals, as normal for subjects that are not either black or white.

For example in this thread. Especially the contributions of Jiri Zurek is worth to read.

http://forum.hauptwerk.com/view ... c&start=15

In this thread a year ago there are some good contributions that discuss some of the principal and still actual aspects of the subject.

http://forum.hauptwerk.com/viewtopic.php?t=2293

Maybe these earlyer threads can help you in your decision.

Regards
Johannes