I always use dry samples then apply my own reverb and/or other effects. Just wondering if there is any significant difference between respective wet and dry samples. If the only difference is that one may use the Kontakt reverb, wouldn\'t it be better to drop the wet samples and either a) increase the quality of the dry samples, or b) use more samples?
[Disclaimer] I am not bad mouthing the GPO quality. I\'ve said it countless times that, of all my libraries, GPO is far and away the best. [/Disclaimer]
I\'ve been thinking about the exact same thing. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Personally, I never bother with the wet samples, mainly because:
1. If I\'m gonna make something, I\'ll use the dry samples with additional reverb anyways.
2. If I\'m just going to \"try a sound out\", I\'d want to hear it dry and \"naked\" because that will give me a more genuine impression of the basic sound itself and will also allow me to spot any possible problems and how to work around them.
As nice as things may sound with reverb, in my experience, the basic dry sound is what counts and is the crucial factor of how it will sound once any reverb is added. No matter how great the reverb or impulse, you can only do so much to cover up a dry sound problem with it.
I\'d actually like to take this question one step further: what is the actual point of the wet samples in the first place?
Everywhere I look users are being adviced: \"Do not use the wet samples when sequencing, they are too resource consuming...\" or something to that effect.
So why bother with wet? Skipping them alltogether would have saved a lot of space and/or made room for other stuff...wouldn\'t it?
NOTE: Like Junkmonkey\'s post, this is not intended as badmouthing either...GPO is great...I\'m just curious about this. Besides, I probably just missed some important point. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
1. Keep in mind the purpose of the “wet” folder: To give users a means of auditioning the samples if they don’t have a standard send-return reverb configuration setup on their computer. Once audition choices have been made the dry counterparts are intended to be substituted for the selections. We didn’t want a new user’s first impression to be one of absolutely dry samples. Limitations (since removed) in the Kontakt player at the time of the original release made a separate “wet” folder necessary to accomplish this “first impression” goal. Experienced users can delete the folder if they like. I would.
2. The “wet” folder instruments use the same samples as the dry folder instruments but with the addition of a Kontakt reverb module set to a nominal level in each instrument. No significant additional HD space is consumed by the “wet” folder of instruments because they use the same sample pool. In other words, space is NOT being taken up by the wet instruments that could be otherwise used for more samples. At the present time the wet instruments also use too much CPU to be practical in most computers.
3. It is one of the core concepts of GPO to keep the number of samples to a minimum, substituting programming techniques for raw sample count. The goal of loading a maximum number of instruments into a practical amount of RAM would be compromised with higher sample counts. Remember: GPO is intended as a convenient-to-use orchestral sketchpad that can be used effectively on a single computer. If sample count rises, the number of instruments that can be simultaneously loaded falls for a given amount of RAM. That is contrary to one of the most important GPO design goals. The last thing I’d like to see GPO do is start drifting toward the kind of higher sample counts that you see in other libraries. That would fundamentally change what GPO is trying to accomplish.
4. Having said the above, samples will certainly be added in the future, some as updates and some in add-on packs but any additions will remain consistent with the design goals of the library.
Re-read #1 in my post above. The wet folder is certainly not there for a reason as petty as “to make the whole thing look bigger.” Come to think of it though, that might inspire an interesting ad campaign: “GPO, the Viagra of Sample Libraries.” Hmmm. Truth is: We would actually prefer that things look smaller for maximum clarity but we felt that the wet folder was necessary for the reasons stated. Much internal debate went into the decision to include separate wet and dry folders. Interestingly, if the product was being introduced now the wet folder would be unnecessary due to changes in the NI player – both choices could have been integrated given the player’s newest capabilities.
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, if the product was being introduced now the wet folder would be unnecessary due to changes in the NI player – both choices could have been integrated given the player’s newest capabilities
[/ QUOTE ]
How does having the new player affect this feature then?
Well, at this stage it won’t have any effect on the structure of the player’s folders because changes could break backward compatibility for users and that’s something we’d prefer to avoid (translation: tech support calls). It’s rather easy to add things to the library without causing any problems but taking things away is asking for trouble – we’d find that someone, somewhere out there was depending upon a particular wet folder instrument that had now gone missing. Even though we don’t recommend using the wet folder for actual projects it is nevertheless possible to use these instruments for very small ensembles without killing the CPU and some people are indeed choosing to use these instruments - sometimes just because they like the sound of the Kontakt reverb.
How would the new player features affect instrument construction had they come earlier? Well, the changes in the player are: 1) being able to establish a default send level upon load and, 2) being able to completely bypass the reverb (and CPU load) when the send level is at “0.” This would have allowed full integration in a single folder structure if we had been willing to accept one small user inconvenience: The instrument reverb knob would have had to be moved to the “off” position for dry use. Even at that, I guarantee there would still have been an internal debate revolving around the acceptability of that small inconvenience for users. All things are weighed, or at least we try.
\"Even though we don’t recommend using the wet folder for actual projects it is nevertheless possible to use these instruments for very small ensembles without killing the CPU and some people are indeed choosing to use these instruments - sometimes just because they like the sound of the Kontakt reverb.\"
At first I thought about deleting the wet folder. However, I\'ve had several situations were I used the wet as an example for clients who want to hear GPO\'s instruments for the first time. It makes for a good first impression. It is quicker to load a wet sample than a dry and thus go through the steps of adding effects. Of course, if you have a composition ready for example, sure. But, several people have asked how certain instruments sound solo either dry and or with verbs “wet”. Besides, there are times were I just want to play an instrument \"wet\" without having to go through extra processes.
Needless to say, I decided to leave well enough alone.
“If it isn’t Baroque, don’t fix it!”