Front Page › Forums › AUDIO & TECHZONE › Audio Chat › Wet/Dry?
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2009 at 8:01 pm #550750
AnonymousInactiveWhat is the difference between a ‘dry’ acapella and a ‘wet’ acapella and which is most preferable?
AdSense 336x280August 6, 2009 at 8:01 pm #670609
AnonymousInactiveWhat is the difference between a ‘dry’ acapella and a ‘wet’ acapella and which is most preferable?
AdSense 336x280August 6, 2009 at 8:24 pm #670610
djshadesukParticipantA wet acapella is one that has been in contact with water, a dry one has not. A dry one is preferable as a wet one can get your other channels all damp.
Sorry, I’ve no idea!
AdSense 336x280August 7, 2009 at 12:47 am #670620
GMoneyParticipant^ lol, that’s awesome.

I believe "wet" means it’s been edited and effects added, probably reverb and the like.
"Dry" is the un-effected version.
AdSense 336x280August 7, 2009 at 10:50 pm #670634
pablo blueParticipantI was soooo tempted to make a dirty joke, but I’ve decided to be mature instead!
Yes, a dry acapella (or any track stem for that matter) is the vocal as it was recorded with no reverb, delay or any other effects added.
When the effects have been put on, it becomes a wet acapella.Usually the wet version well sound exactly as it does in the released (mixed) version of the track.
I prefer dry vocals, because you can always add effects, but it’s usually pretty difficult to take them out.
Mr Blue Esq
AdSense 336x280August 9, 2009 at 2:57 am #670678
HiBeats ProductionsParticipantYeah, dry vocals are always preferable. Hopefully they’re uncompressed as well but I think engineers limit the peaks of vocal recordings live anyway.
AdSense 336x280August 11, 2009 at 4:00 am #670726
DecibelAlexParticipantLook lads, a wet capella is with an echo and a dry is simply not with an echo.
AdSense 336x280August 11, 2009 at 4:45 am #670733
djshadesukParticipant
facepalms myself for the answer I gave earlier… I guess I was tired!! (thats my excuse and I’m sticking to it!!)DJ Coppy wrote:Look lads, a wet capella is with an echo and a dry is simply not with an echo.Not necessarily an echo Coppy… A wet acapella can be an acapella that has had ANY post-processing effect applied to it that was not there in the original recording. A dry acapella is one preserved exactly as it was recorded.
Don’t forget some acapellas are intentionally recorded in an environment that echoes, would you consider them wet or dry? The same can be said for recordings made in rooms that produce reverb too.
With or without echoes is simply too simplistic.
AdSense 336x280August 11, 2009 at 10:56 am #670746
DecibelAlexParticipantDJ Coppy wrote:Look lads, a wet capella is with an echo and a dry is simply not with an echo.DJShadesUK wrote:Not necessarily an echo Coppy… A wet acapella can be an acapella that has had ANY post-processing effect applied to it that was not there in the original recording. A dry acapella is one preserved exactly as it was recorded.Yea i guess that’s right..
[quote quote="DJShadesUK":19li6frl]Don’t forget some acapellas are intentionally recorded in an environment that echoes, would you consider them wet or dry? The same can be said for recordings made in rooms that produce reverb too.
[/quote:19li6frl]well i guess it then depends on where the acapella is recorded?
But seriously, how many acapellas is recorded in that kind of enviroment you think? ppl who don’t know how to add echo/reverb to their recordings? yes ofc..
AdSense 336x280August 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm #670747
djshadesukParticipantDJ Coppy wrote:how many acapellas is recorded in that kind of enviroment you think? ppl who don’t know how to add echo/reverb to their recordings? yes ofc..
I imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of acapellas recorded in exactly those kind of environments, choirs, for instance spring to mind. Just because the modern music industry (commercial pop/dance/rnb) choose to record vocals in sound deadened rooms doesn’t mean its the norm, or even suitable for all types of acapella.
AdSense 336x280August 11, 2009 at 12:46 pm #670748
DecibelAlexParticipantDJShadesUK wrote:[quote quote="DJ Coppy":1g4jr113]how many acapellas is recorded in that kind of enviroment you think? ppl who don’t know how to add echo/reverb to their recordings? yes ofc..
I imagine there are hundreds, if not thousands, of acapellas recorded in exactly those kind of environments, choirs, for instance spring to mind. Just because the modern music industry (commercial pop/dance/rnb) choose to record vocals in sound deadened rooms doesn’t mean its the norm, or even suitable for all types of acapella.[/quote:1g4jr113]
who knows..
AdSense 336x280August 12, 2009 at 12:57 am #670763
EdwardRParticipantNatural reverb and echo are old, but still incredibly popular in music recording.
It’s why places such as Abbey Road and the old Olympia Studios got such good reputations. Their rooms had a strong acoustic character that you can normally hear on recordings made there. It was the reason bands went back to them time and time again. The equipment got better, but the rooms didn’t change a lot. Olympia recently folded, but Abbey Rd lives on thanks to its legendary status..
I know someone who’s just spent the best part of £200,000 on refitting their studio, and the aim is to have the best live room for drums in the UK. It’s nearly finished..can’t wait to go and have a play !
AdSense 336x280August 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm #670961
marcoluxParticipantit is really normal to have vocals recording room engineered to "sound" in a certain way (reverb etc.) but i think that is not to be considerate like postprocessing by adding effects, so i think that a dry acapella with a natural reverb effect cannot be considered wet..
AdSense 336x280August 20, 2009 at 5:11 am #670972
djshadesukParticipantmarcolux wrote:i think that a dry acapella with a natural reverb effect cannot be considered wet..Thats my point exactly and why I referred to DJ Coppy’s view of a wet acapella as being one with an echo (or reverb) was, being polite, too simplistic.
AdSense 336x280September 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm #671555
HyperstateParticipantWet vocals are the bane of my life!! I got sent some vox recently for a big trance remix, it was a nightmare as they were slathered in reverb and delay, wetter than a horny dolphin they were, which meant there was pretty much nothing I could do creatively to tweak them, meaning they were extremely hard to work into any mix but the one they came from, uberdoh!
AdSense 336x280September 17, 2009 at 1:46 pm #672064
bohneParticipantdry
AdSense 336x280November 22, 2009 at 10:43 pm #674353
syrus1Participantpretty simple.. dry is the CLEAN and non-proccesed vocal track. If you’ve got a wet track that means effects are added and stuff like that
AdSense 336x280January 6, 2010 at 5:36 pm #675885
RyujiParticipantyes what marcolux said, it’s dry even after natural reverb (which is pretty hard to get rid off)
So dry is the clean input signal that you record from a mic (try make it as "dry" as possible if you want to lay FX on it later)
and the wet would be the post-FX signal.So when you start off you want the root sample, the dry one, from there you can do whatever you want. (It’s harder to reverse this, taking off the processed effects
from a vocal is like trying to separate the peanut butter from a peanut butter & jelly sandwich, it’s never perfect.)AdSense 336x280January 7, 2010 at 3:38 am #675920
Do WorkParticipantWhere is the best place to get the dry acapella I am assuming it is easier to get wet ones straight from the song and instrumental inverts
AdSense 336x280March 7, 2010 at 4:24 am #677867
pjburnhillParticipantI’m pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death.
AdSense 336x280March 7, 2010 at 10:23 pm #677932
ChicagoCheerFXParticipantDry is always preferable, you can always turn fx on/off
AdSense 336x280 -
AuthorPosts
The forum ‘Audio Chat’ is closed to new topics and replies.
