I'm curious about the way you create your "dry" samples. Does "dry" in this case simply mean that the recording has been made in a small room with few reflections, or do you actually remove the acoustic response from samples using INVERSE convolution?
They did a similiar (and interresting) thing with the Hubble telescope. In the beginning, the images from the telescope weren't perfect. The lens wasn't good enough, and the images were somewhat blurred/distorted. I mean, the images were great, but could be even better. Now, if you blur/distort an image, this can be seen as convolution of the image by a specific blurring/distorting function. You're "smearing" the image in the same way a reverb "smears" the sound signal. Someone came up with the idea of calculating exactly how the lens system "smeared" the image (similiar to the acoustic response of a room, but instead it's the optic response of a lens). They then tried to remove the distortion using inverse convolution, and the results were incredible. I don't remember the numbers, but you know, I think the telescope could see 100 times farther through space or something like that. A huge difference.
I'm not sure to what extent this can be used, but it sure is reality. What I'm trying to say is that it's possible to record the acoustic response of the studio room, at the microphone position (using the same microphone/recording system), and remove EVERYTHING but the original pure instrument signal (acoustic response, noise from the microphone/studio system, EQ, constant background noise, electronic buzz, etc. you name it). It would be like playing the instrument from the inside of your computer.
Now, todays "dry" samples probably also work great for sample-based libraries. But if you use this technique you might be able to REALLY dissect the sound and learn exactly how the inherent instrument signal works. Imagine the sound of a violin with NO distortions at all. Now, if you want to create libraries with generated sounds instead of samples...
These "dry" samples will probably sound a little corny, but if you run them through a convolution reverb and play them, they should have the quality of "not ever having been recorded by a system made by man". I don't want to judge anything before I hear it, but in theory, these samples would really be the real thing.
You have to remember that an acoustic response isn't just the acoustic responce of the room, but actually the acoustic responce of the room combined with the acoustic distortions from the recording system used. If your recording system also EQ's the recorded acoustic responce in any way, so will the signals ran through the same convolution reverb be EQ'd. This is one of the main reasons it sounds so great, it actually emulates a RECORDING made in the room! (if I haven't got just about EVERYTHING wrong?)
Maybe you've already done this stuff? I'd love to hear about it.