it is ABSOLUTELY worth it, and once you go W/D/W, there is no turning back. I have a 3 amp setup with W/D/W in the middle powered by a modified jet city going to a selection v-30 and then take a tap with a Bray line-out box and go into an eventied micro-pitch pedal and into a PA amp and then into a 2x12 cab wired stereo. On the other-side of my A/B/Y switch I have a Marshal Origin 20c and FHRD in wet/dry and or stereo with 3 cables that I control with an HXFX. There is NO sound I can't create almost. And I put it all together well under $2750 buying it used. I've had professional guitarists plug into my rig and shake their head who have spent a lot more.
for just playing at home and even recording (depends on what you're trying to do) if you're willing to put in the effort then sure do whatever but live it is so hilariously impractical and gives absolutely zero benefit. mono, dual mono, and wet dry if done right i think make sense but stereo and wdw provide no benefit for how much extra work, money, and possible problems compared to other ways of running things
So how are you getting signal from the two amps in stereo to the interface? What speakers did you use for each amp when stereo? Wouldn't using two different amps immediately put the stereo rig at a disadvantage?
WET/DRY Masterrace like TPS is doing it, nails it for me ,super easy to set up, no hustle with the sound guy everything down the center, no fiddling around with 1000 options. Just two amps one driven one clean with reverb delay mod !
The way they run it isn't really wet/dry/wet - it's more an elaborate splitting system with all the pedals in series into one amp (wet and dry), and then some amps with just the dry pedal. It's more like Dry, Wet+Dry, Wet+Dry. It doesn't resemble the parallel nature of the processing effects in stereo as an actual wet/dry/wet rig, it also puts multiple preamp and power amp stages together where the wet/dry/wet rig feeds the same preamp and power amp to the wet effects in stereo. Frequently, this way of splitting multiple amps can riddle your rig with ground loops, and host of polarity (phase) issues which make this alternative, to me at least, more complicated than just doing it properly as it was done in the 80's and 90's.
There is nothing like a wet/dry/wet rig. Once you experience that sound of 100% dry guitar combined with stereo, 100% wet fx...it is glorious! There are some things to consider if you are playing live and that is dealing with PA systems that are bridged mono and not stereo or inadequate sound guys. In the studio, this is a powerful tool to be able to do but live, it can be a pain in the ass. If you use this live, you need to explain to the sound man what you are doing and hopefully, they have enough available channels to give you 3 channels. I quit playing live with a wet/ dry/ wet rig and currently play one amp. Fx wise, I'll occasionally use a chorus but typically it is reverb and a ducked delay setting....
I was listening to this on my car stereo. It really does make things sound more dimensional and less flat, Not that the stereo sounded flat, but it was definitely not as dimensional as the wet dry wet
Per this conversation and the Chairmen conversation yesterday, I will experiment with WDW for acoustic. Love the L R Baggs Para DI, so I will use that. I also have the Musicom Parallelizer and will use that also. Thanks for the idea, Mason!
I'm currently touring with WDW setting with two Fender Princetons for stereo and a VOX AC30 for mono dry on stage, splitting the signal right after dry chain (drives, Gamechanger's Pedal Plus and Bigsby, Empress's tape echo, Union's Evermore, MXR Uni Vibe, Freeze EHX, POG EHX, bass Big Muff EHX, Cantrell wah and volume pedal). The Princetones are loaded with lush sounding stereo R1 reverb, Avalanche Run, D1 delay, Flint Strymon vib/rev and Ola Strymon chorus. JHS's Artificial blonde introduces stereo chain, since it runs mono-in stereo-out. 💪As a lead vocalist I really enjoy the WDW setting, with all three amps tightly behind me, immersed to the max in sound. AC30 giving the extra spunk, delivers push and greater bass response and at the same time clarity for my FOH engineer. It's such a beautiful configuration, it just can't be matched wit the "stereo only" setup I've been live using prior to WDW. 🙌Same goes for studio. WDW works so well on Fender Rhodes, Wurly, guitars, lap-steels, pedal-steels ... And, in my case, it's all-tube WDW with gorgeous sweet sounding amps, running them as clean as possible at low volume (1-2), as an all-tube effects platform, with treble and bass knobs on 1968 reissue Princetons cranked all the way up. A huge-sounding setting worth every effort. Well ... We're in it for the sound, aren't we? 🤩
@@suqies As I mentioned above: after mono chain I split the signal, so all the dry mono effects are patched to AC30. The same signal, including the mono effects chain, continues to wet stereo chain, with its final destination 2 Princetons, left and right.
I came to parallel effects first through playing bass and appreciating how it allowed the low end to stay thick and punchy regardless of effects being used. When I started to get more serious about electric guitar wet/dry/wet made sense for similar reasons. Just as in the above examples you played the guitar is more focussed and punchy and there is a greater flexibility in how that interacts with the wet effects. There are so many great and easy, pedalboard-friendly options out there now for running wet/dry/wet it’s really easy to do!
Most of the venues where I play have poor enough acoustics - whether it is the room or PA or both - that I don't know whether the subtleties of WDW will have a significant impact, unless perhaps it cleans up the mud a bit. However, even if the room completely negates the benefit for the audience, I hear a significant difference. I love the way the pristine dry cuts through and the wet seems to have more depth without so much mud. The sound inspires me. And when I'm inspired, I play better. The good stuff gets drawn out. And that does translate to the audience.
It’s worth it, and there are ways to get the clarity without breaking the bank. I’ve been able to get WDW in our church’s mono mix using a Rolls Stereo MX28 (small 3-ch mixer) on my pedal board. Using a POD Go I put the stereo FX loop block after the cab block, run a TRRS splitter sending L-side to ch1, then R-side to a Big Sky then to ch2. After the fx loop block in the POD Go are my delays which are 100% mix, and go from the L-main out to ch3. Not exactly textbook but I’ve really enjoyed it, and it has its switching limitations.
Great video and very clear on the differences. I have played with both and agree having an untainted guitar signal mixed with wet stereo blanketing it sounds so full and clear. If I were playing a sit down and listen show, I would absolutely go wet/dry/wet. If I played a noisy bar with people talking and glassies klinking, they are getting series/wet quick and dirty set up.
Maybe there's a different vibe in the room. But, listening to this through a pair of high-end Warfedale speakers, the stereo sounds better to me with a wider sound. This is a tough road to try and go down, given that a w/d/w setup is a major investment. Yet, there's no where do go and hear a setup like this before making that decision. I was hoping this would shed some light on it, but it looks like I won't really know until I wind up with three amps. I do very much appreciate the effort and explanation you put into this.
I played stereo from 87’ to 2017. I now have a small W/D\W rig. If you have a stereo P.A. or play small rooms, its the difference between sounding like a club cover band and sounding like a show. If you can’t be bothered, that’s cool. We always sound better than “that band last week”…. The secret is to not use effects all the time.
Very interesting video! Thank you for inserting a Michael Landau arpeggio that plays in Juan Carlos Baglietto's "Media Luz En Paris" at 7:40! 👍👏👏👏 A song that very few know that Michael Landau plays there !!! 😉
For me, as an addicted guitar player of the session heroes of the 80s, I always preferred playin’ in Stereo when using the chorus or pitch modulation, while wet/dry/wet is better for the crunch/lead parts, where the dry signal is in center, and delays or reverbs are mixed on the left and on the right channel
Thanks Mason. I’ve been wanting to experiment with stereo vs w/d/w. W/D/W has truer transients around the notes in the examples, though I would have loved to hear them A/B’d back to back with no talking in between. Love your videos man.
Playing in a band a guitar player needs to find a narrow hole in the mix and fill it with the simplest sound. I am guilty too, but bedrooms are the place where you can explore every nuance of your sound. Not at a gig or on a record. You will never hear this level of nuance in a band.
Michael Landau has entered the chat. Edit: seriously though, I played a small club gig last night with a wet/ dry (TPS wet/dry) rig with two combos. The amps were not mic’d and I needed a bigger sound. I can say with hand on heart that non-guitar and guitar people were saying how good the guitar sound was. It encourages you to enjoy using trem/vibrato, chorus and big delays as well. The band is two singers - one on electro acoustic through the PA a, bassist, drummer, and me on electric. I used two compact 1x12 Morgan amps, a small board and a Goodwood Audio splitter with phase correction and ground lift for the wet/dry signal management. I enjoyed playing more, the audience got a better band sound, and everyone’s a winner. For me, it’s worth the extra package to load in and out. I appreciate everyone’s situation differs and I agree with you about finding your space. I have an Empress ParaEQ on the board and was tweaking during soundcheck to fit in.
I agree, but disagree! Did you ever get to see Van Halen live after roughly, 1989? Preferably the ou812, and later sound live? Unbelievable full sound! But on an album, doesn’t work. But live, 1 guitarist, a bass player, drummer… sounds amazing!!
I look forward to your videos every week! You always have the most interesting and nerdy subject matter and I just love it. Keep it up! In regards to this video, I see the benefits of w/d/w but I am personally satisfied with a stereo setup. I use a FM3/fx/switcher board anyway and am direct and it’s glorious enough in my ears. Granted I’m able to run all wet fx post and in parallel via the digital fx chain and takes away some of the clarity issues inherent with a traditional stereo setup.
Check out the JET Pedals Red Sea Stereo Parallel FX splitter for blending in two amplifier pedals. If you have one pedal that mimics tweed fender amplifiers and another pedal that mimics a dumble amplifier you can now blend them into a stereo mix. Try to make a video lesson about blending two different amplifier type pedals. This pedal is placed at the end of your effects pedal board.
A couple of weeks ago Noah Guthrie opened for Willie Nelson at a State Fair. I’m laughing my ass off imagining Rhett Shull handing the sound man 3 leads and explaining how much better his w/d/w is going to be.
You get this center point for the dry sound and the echoes and reverb sit behind it giving a sense of space and dimension with wet dry wet. But I agree it’s daunting to start down that rabbit hole of gear
WDW mega fan. And it really doesn't need to be complicated either. Can start off with an ABY, A for Dry chain into Amp 1, B for Wet chain, ending with a stereo pedal run into the 2 satellite amps. It 'can' be a lot more involved; but really doesn't need to be.
ABY thing isn't wet/dry/wet...it's just an elaborate splitting system that is often riddled with polarity (phase) issues and involves more preamps, power amps, and cabinets than is really needed to pull off the classic execution.
i do three amps with stereo delay > reverb > trem > leslie sim > reverb going to the outside amps, but don't kill dry. so i guess that's more of a damp/dry/damp? i also run the inside amp out of phase to kill some flub.
@@VertexEffectsInc for sure, I go for some murky and washed tones. As soon as I get really into stereo or these sort of hybrid setups I go back to pure mono and that’s super fun too.
Fabulous guitar playing, btw. I am watching/listening through android bluetoothed to a JBL flip5. I'm kind of a big dummy so I will probably watch this video several times breaking it down into small portions so that I can understand what's going on. It is all very interesting to me. I need to say that if you've ever gotten into your vehicle and turned on XM and you hear those weird digital upper frequency Havoc for lack of a better term that is what I am hearing on most of the Reverb tails. The only time that weird upper frequency digital degradation goes away is when you say you're turning off the delay and you start playing from 1710 through 1809 and my gosh that Reverb is so fabulous you can hear the Tails and everything I can even hear the slight percussiveness of you stopping each note or chord one of these days I'm going to buy that steel string pedal in the meantime thank you very much I am totally amazed
Well done demo on the two effects- WDW definitely has more definition, dimension and separation in between the mix , but certainly isn’t practical for many impromptu situations. Enjoyed the presentation, and nice playing btw Jason!
IDK about for touring, however in the room with 3 cabs … it’s a different kind of clarity inside a wash of efx. 🤘🏽W🤘🏽D🤘🏽W🤘🏽for life. (Even digitally modeled versions due to logistical restrictions ).
I actually prefer the stereo sound. I like the feel of “togetherness” vs. the wet dry wet which almost sounds too “separated” for my liking. Just my preference, no right or wrong!
The question is more, if they make sense outside of a studio setup. Because in a studio w/d/w is pretty achievable through plugins and you have even more control through that process (even if you decide to reamp later) or using a good split like a Lehle P split into the Wet stuff, before using IRs in the box. For live use it's a bit overkill in many setups. Unless you work with a trusted soundguy it can end rather horrible and most of those guys would be rather happy with just a W/D so they can control the effect level. W/D/W also means that you have to run your monitors or IEM in stereo to even enjoy it. And i doubt the average audience member will even hear a difference. For the studio. Do it if it's your thing. For anything else, it seems like not worth the effort and cost.
The P Split or any splitter before the wet effects doesn't put them in a parallel path or after the amp and before the speaker for their own separate processing. You're still running serial chains of pedals with a splitter and running into multiple preamps and power amp sections and speaker cabs. This can become a real polarity (phase) nightmare.
I like both for different reasons. The stereo is much more of an old school sound for those like myself who are looking for a warmer tone with more glue. An advantage of stereo is the ability to use two significantly different amps for a fuller sound. That said, W/D/W is definitely spacier and cleaner for the style of music that requires pristine time-based tones paralleling crisp dries. Thanks for this overdue comparison of the two setups!
It took me two of your videos to figure out that one frigging thing was your recording interface. LOL I thought it was like a H9 looking fx pedal or something. LABEL THE STUFF please!
WDW sounded so much better...so much! The guitar wasn't muddled up. All the nuances were distinct, and the effects sounded right....just like the famous recordings. I will be making the switch asap to WDW as your channel has given me the knowledge to do so now. Beautiful heart felt intro on your first example! Peace, love, and respect...thank you!
Interesting stuff. For what it's worth. I had a crude stereo rig when playing in the 70s. My Redmere amp (if anyone recalls them) had some built in effects and in the rear of the amp, a stereo out. IIRC, only the flange or chorus utilised it but it was a brilliant result. One day we plugged in my mates Oberheim synth into my amp then ran the stereo into his keyboard rig. There was a programme on the OBX that had a sensational portamento setting where every note went on a trip resolving itself to all the others at the time. That went via the stereo rig and all the different portamento runs went right/left etc. A pity we couldn't really use it live. Too much stuff to carry around. More recently I've found the following to be useful as a reasonable set up. A guitar amp with a feed into a Headload Prodigy or similar and from that, the direct out into a DV Mark multiamp without any amp model in the chain. If you have the stereo version then even more options but the mono is fine. The benefit of this is only in logistics because the effects are built in so no problems of having tons of floor space that isn't available in small venues and also they multiamp can be controlled by a small midi pedal. Personally I prefer this type of set if we can get away with it. It's a decent compromise.
i made my own lil rig starting with a jfet splitter so i could have another speaker besides the pa technically i realize this is not WDW but i am still proud of my work as it sounds very good when you are there . i run a DIGITAL modeler - nux mg30 - to the pa , then a center channel gauss speaker (like a jbl - aluminum dust cap) a single 12 with a diy 50 watt head with a few pedals . the diy head has a jfet marshall superbass circuit and i use a noise gate with a carl martin plexitone on that channel. it sounds really good in this config - to my ear i set the center channel amp a bit louder than the pa and i adjust the gain and set that cleaner or less dirt on the center channel . on the wet side -custom nuxmg30 patches with custom ir's i also run a mooer ocean machine which is a dual delay with reverb on the wet side , with a exp pedal set for the fx volume and then a tap tempo switch for both delays . i love that rig but its a bit much for our duo - it has to fit in a compact toyota, i have herniated disks , we have to lug the gear pretty far from the parking lot to the pavilion , so. . it is nice to have options and i switch up often . the entire rig runs on rechargeable li ion battery's .we run a 48 volt e-bike battery to power the pa which is a 600 watt class d 150 150 300 2.1 set up with a pair of 10 inch pa speakers and a gk neo 210 for the "sub" . it works very well , but i spent a long time to get where we are now , and i am finished. i have options for my center channel amp . i have three amps i have built with internal battery packs . one has a built in noise gate with a les luis on one side and a angry Charlie on the other . i have another with a run off groove tone mender in front of a class d amp and that one i use a modeler pedal. its nice having choices . more recently i have been working on much smaller micro rig for us so we can take this stuff to a local park and play when the weather is nice . the micro rig is much smaller and i have all that nailed down now. i built a few different iterations for the bass which is always the challenge . last night i built a 10 inch bass guitar speaker into an old XAM cabinet , which was jc pennys hifi house brand . its a great lil cab. it has a class d 100 mono amp and a 3 band eq , runs off 10 18650 cells 8 for the amp and two for the eq . we haven't tested it yet but we have a pair of hartke 6.5 half aluminum cone half paper speakers in smaller sub enclosures that run off a 50x2 amp and i am waiting for a good stereo eq board to come in as we ended up being shipped 3 of those that had issues - chinesium - its not always wise to order the cheapest stuff unless you are prepared to deal with some duds and then fight to get a refund but we have done ok . ali express is cheaper than ebay for all this stuff . if you want to play around with battery powered stuff class d is the way to go . i realize a tube amp will sound better - good luck with that - powering tube gear with battery's . that's above my paygrade but if you heard the rig you wouldn't thing it sound harsh or cold . this video features a wet wet wet wet rig but .... th-cam.com/video/FQ7mT-vBci0/w-d-xo.html you get the idea . we live in an apartment so we have a few areas in our place where we are able to play using headphone rigs . i have built some headphone amps with burr brown ic chips and little eqs with the same , we like to use SUPERLUX brand headphones as they provide spectacular performance for affordable price tag . what we do is not exactly in line with the vertex philosophy as the main stipulation is battery power. we stared playing around with this idea in 2005 , got serious in 2010 so we do try . to my ear it doesn't sound " digital" or harsh so ... maybe we could squeek by and the all analog cork sniffing group of guitar enthusiasts would give us a pass. t we are not really doing this for any other reason than we love to do it and we can not push air at home . we played on the patio 2 years ago - i used pc speakers for the mains , my wife had a 6 and i had a 6 inch speaker and the cops came at 5 pm . our neighbors live there hip hop and subwoofers , guitars not so much . having written over 500 pieces of very simple music in my life i feel no need to say i am sorry for my gear even if it isnt something SRV or gilmour played thru . not everyone wishes to emulate someone else's thing but you wont win any popularity contests taking this path , thats one thing for sure . big fan of vertex ! exceptional quality content here so i couldnt help myself with my massive comment.
This time as i watch/listen to video i am able to hear the details of the upper frequencies and the echo/verbs tails very clearly THROUGHOUT. I also grasp better what you are teaching. (Useing same setup of cel to flip5 to listen) i can hear the ever so slight mudding of the tone in the series scenarios, although fabulous sound and performance. I can also hear the more clear tonalities during the W/D/W parallel scenarios. The clean tone continues through the mix as all the mod and echo and verb seem to leave a wake of beauty behind the tones like an aura that dissapates in a nice way.
3 amps? How do you get the signal to them? Dry, Dry+Wet, Dry+Wet. It's a problem for polarity/phase and also doesn't put anything in parallel, it's just an elaborate splitting system.
I hope someday to go a step further, W/D/D/W Basically it's WDW but I run a dry signal left and a doubled dry signal right (like the TC Mimiq) and then stereo fx in parallel.
I've been experimenting with simulating W/D/W with my pedalboard and interface. Where I plug the guitar into a DI box the goes into the one of my inputs of my interface. I also take a line from the through on the DI and send it to the front of my pedal board which returns to the interface on two XLR cables to two other inputs on the interface. I can then, later re-amp the pure DI back through the pedalboard without any modulation, delay or reverb to get the dry channel. It works pretty well provided that I don't use any wah or pitch bending as I would have to double that aspect on the fly. It also wouldn't work in a live situation. I'm not sure if there would be a way to pull this off without a complete overhaul of my rig.
Definitely love the W/D/W setup more sonically…more clarity in dynamics without compromising the wet FX sound. I am curious though, what do you think about the W/D/W in comparison to running a stereo setup with the wet FX in parallel? Would you still have a stronger center image with the W/D/W because you have the mono dry channel, or could you possibly have a wider sound with the definition if you run two seperate amps but have your wet FX run in parallel as opposed to series?
I prefer the parallel effects for sure if you can do it that way, it's a bit harder to do routing wise but worth it if you have 100% wet effects, or pedals that are capable of doing that. I use the Source Audio Collider because it goes 100% wet and can put the reverb and delay in parallel in one box without an external mixer.
Being mostly a live musician, the stereo rig sounds more useful for me. When you add live sounds to mix, the guitar effects always sound less impactful. I've very little experience in studio.
Could you please show how to make a small wet dry wet rig that would contain all tubes, one main dry tube amp, two additional 112 cans, and a stereo pier amp?
Yes, definitely on what goes into the front of the amp and on the input where the guitar enters for sure. If your stereo wet pedals are feeding a power amp they will also needs stereo output buffers and maybe some isolation as well.
I was the Ron Popiel of guitar players. I would find my tone, then set it and forget it. The variety of tone you can achieve now is amazing! But wet dry wet is a bridge too far for my boomer needs. Don't let this old guy hold back you young tone hounds! Just remember... Clean is beautiful 😍
I got a question, would really appreciate your input here - Scenario: running a dry signal (on both L/R) with parallel mixed L/R fully wet delay/reverb and then sending L/R outputs to FOH (L has dry signal + L fully wet signal mixed in parallel, and R has dry signal + R fully wet signal mixed in parallel) Question: If the FOH pans L/R down to center during performance, am I likely to run into Phase issues?
For a really fair comparison, wouldn't you need to have the chorus and collider in parallel in the WDW example? You've got the chorus feeding the collider running 100% wet for WDW, so the chorus returns are getting 100% delayed/verbed. Whereas in the stereo example some off the chorus passes through the dry path of the collider. Minor difference I know, but it all adds up :)
No the chorus is outside the mixer in both examples so that's a constant. It also wouldn't be in a mixer on any of the classic rack rigs since it doesn't got 100% wet. There is still an analog dry path in the Collider.
I felt like I was being transported into a Richard Marx hit from the mid to late 80’s, and I can’t emphasize enough how much of a compliment I mean that as… 👏👏👏
I have a question somewhat related to wet dry wet. In order to keep multiple amps from buzzing I use a passive Radial Stagebug (SB-6) line isolator as a final output that uses transformers to lift the ground of the L and R amps. The literature says its frequency response is 20Hz to 20kHz and “automatically configured hi-z or lo-z signal chains”. Are there any impedance issues or tone suck problems that could be caused by a transformer based line isolator in my signal chain? Thanks Mason!
You should only have one amp and stereo power amps. Most line out boxes have ISO'd outs like the Suhr for example. You shouldn't need two iso'd outs for the stereo power amp.
Trying to think the last stage that I played with more than 30" of space in the backline. If you are the only guitarist in the band, maybe it makes sense to run something other than a mono rig. With two guitarists in my band, and a different soundman and PA at every gig, mono is the easiest way to go for me.
The way we ran this wet/dry/wet rig only used one amp and a cab sim for the wet processing stereo effects. No extra space needed compared to a mono rig.
I like wet/dry/wet,, first reason is your best amp gives you your core tone,, but i don’t want to use xtra amps,,, just PA speakers or house speakers that can run a digital stereo simulation of an amp.
@@ABCDEF-ks5op I guess I will have to stick with powered kemper and passive kemper speaker and use the stereo outs for now then? I could use the direct out as dry and use stereo out to PA? Still would prefer a tube amp on the dry. Sounds like im gonna need a stereo cab zeuss.
@@mrnewty2 The only way it wil work without phase issues and latency is if you run 2 analog tube amps together. I do it like that a mashall style amp as dry a little bit driven, and a fender style wet set clean in which I run modulation delay & reverb sounds fantastic and is super easy to set up for the sound guy. Check out That Pedal show Wet/Dry they explain every possibility and issues in detail with examples
Greig - that's what I'm doing here using the GFI Cab Zeus for the stereo cab sim for the wet. You won't get latency if you have the analog dry path intact.
I use wet-dry-wet too, never looked back to normal stereo or mono ever since. Yeah it’s impractical to move such a rig for small gigs, but that’s why I have my Quad Cortex and my “essential pedals” board as backup to mimic what I have in WDW setup for such gigs. Just hard to get back to non WDW even with just the backup rig, my ears just used to the clarity and depth it provides😅
I think this video misses a major reason to go w/d/w, which is preservation of your dry signal. For big clean spacey sounds it doesn’t matter too much, but when using a sweet dirt sound you may not want your main signal cluttered with effects. With a w/d/w you can control exactly how much processing you want to hit the ear without compromising your dry tone.
Running 2 amps w/d with 2 more running stereo. I like how the dry gives that xtra clarity and bonus that allows momentary opportunities of lead boost control to cut through without affecting wet signal.
Maybe I missed it, but this whole discussion (Wet/Dry/Wet, Wet/Dry, Wet+Dry/Wet, etc) is about live performance, and live performance *only,* right? In a studio/recording context, it's all academic using current technology; you can easily set up any configuration "in the box", whether you have one amp, two amps, or zero amps.
The art of applying wet/dry/wet ist to eliminate the dry signal from the wet signals completely. While this requires a lot of planning, special wiring and effects devices and / or mixers which support that, this can turn out to be this challenging that almost nobody hast the chance to do it. So, most of the wet/dry/wet rigs are actually wet+dry/dry/wet+dry rigs, which sound completely different. I do wet/dry/wet since 1981, so I have tried out a lot. Let me explain how a real wet/dry/wet rig works: let‘s assume we want to have modulation, delay and reverb as wet signals without any dry portion on this wet signals. We go out of the amp into the modulation effect. The output of the modulation effect is kill dry. The delay is then fed with the modulated signal plus the dry signal from the amp, otherwise the delay would only be fed with the modulated signal. The reverb needs to be fed with the dry signal of the amp plus the modulated signal out of the modulation effect plus the delay out of the delay effect. We do not want to get delays from the modulated signal only, we do also not want to get reverb from the delayed signal only. The idea is to get only the effects parts on the wet outputs while each of the wet effects is triggered by original plus the effects out of the devices before. Confusing? It took me a while to recognize that any dry signal on the wet outputs will destroy the approach of completely splitting dry from wet. But it‘s worth the efforts. Nothing else is done in the studio. Nothing else you would do in a DAW. And it sounds great on stage. There might be FOH people which do not accept three signals anyway. But I mostly made the experience that FOH mixers appreciate the complete separation from dry to wet a lot, for they easily can adjust the pure effects signals from the dry signal. It would be great to show such a setup, doing a comparison between real wet/dry/wet and wet+dry/dry/wet+dry.
Not exactly, it wasn't till the 1990's where you started seeing 100% wet cabs being used for wet/dry/wet. Most of the classic rigs all had some dry in the wet cabinets, whether it be Lukather, Landau, EVH, etc. Most guys never used their chorus effects (mod) in kill dry, it was normally the last effect before the first mix stage of the 100% wet effects that fed the mixers in stereo. The H3000 or SPX90 were used for some Micro Pitch Detune (which sorta was like mod), that helped widen the chorus sounds. But Reverb, Delay, those were usually what was in the mixers and 100% wet, not the chorus sound. In fact, most of these were even capable of going 100% wet, like the Tri Stereo Chorus for example.
@@VertexEffectsInc At least it's worth tryin'.. But for some reasons they want the guitar stuck in mono in the center of the mix, while they give all their 'bellz and whistles', schmoo and schmellz to the keys. In stereo..🙄 It's ironic.. Maybe I'll show up with a keytar on my next gig..😅
Although this is mostly for guitar, on bass I usually do something similar, running a channel with just clean or drive signal and synths, octaves, delays, etc. on a second channel. Honestly I think is makes for a much better definition than just blended effects on one channel.
It is definitely worth it for me but if you show up at a club, the audio tech will look at you like you're nuts. At very most I'll use a stereo rig, one side in the loop and the other side into another amp loop
You can simulate it with a fractal unit that can run effects in parallel. In my case obviously they cannot be divided in 3 out cabinets, but the sound especially in the high gain territory is much better.
@@VertexEffectsInc This can be discussed :).. But i would saying that this configuration dry/wet sound much better with my fractal... Also with my jvm adding effect at the end rather than in the effects loop. The effects loop is very good anyway.
This is what he is doing here. The load box is just stealing a line level signal after the pre/post amp signal and sending that to the fx and the cabzeus. The load box has a speaker thru which connects back to the amps speaker. The amp is then mic'd up and that is your dry channel one. The line out from the load box feeds the fx that will be stereo such as , chorus, reverb, delay and then to the cabzeus( speaker emulator) which will take two stereo, wet only fx to the mixer board with channel 2 panned hard left and channel 3 panned hard right. Thus, your wet/dry/wet ....
So I have an an orange head with no effects loop. Does the bray or suhr line out fix that? What is the difference in a splitter and the Bray line out as far as the overdrive not running through them to the wet effects ?
Can you explain how this would work with a stereo amp with or without effect loop(s)? Any recommendations when choosing amps or stereo amps related to above question?
This was shown how to do with stereo amps without effects loop, if you used stereo amps with effects loops you just run the send to the input of the first wet effect and then the stereo outputs of the last wet effect would return into both amps fx return. One of the two amps would be used as a glorified power amp.
Personally I want the sound I make when I play my instrument to be roughly and mechanically the same whether I'm playing at home, jamming with friends or at a gig. This doesn't really seem feasible with even a simplified wet dry wet rig. You gain flexibility but lose that identity of your sound imo. I prefer a stereo rig for this reason because it's just guitar amps, speakers, and pedals. My rig is small-medium sized enough that it can stands alone in that way in all of those situations.
Great video! Quick question, if my interface only has two inputs, could I do this with two tracks (one dry/one wet) and then record the third wet track separately?
You could only do Wet/Dry, or you could expand it, if it's an Apollo, with the light pipe jack to another group of channels. We've done this with a Presonus with our Apollo Twin at our studio in LA.
Mason trying for the simplest set up to get the WDW sound using a GFI Cabzeus (possibly going to front of house), do I still need to run dual amps or is there a way to do it with just one amp for live performances? Oh and I do have the Source Audio Collider and Source Audio Ventris. I'll go and look for the videos you referenced. I do recall you mentioning how to set it up but I remember being unsure with my mono rig.
You only need one amp, mono amp. Use the line out of that to feed the wet effects in stereo into the Stereo Cab Zeus. The main amp is the dry amp (mic'd) and is channel one, the two sides of the Cab Zeus are channels 2 and 3. Hard pan 2 and 3 in the FOH with your amp (channel 1) up the middle. We have videos on this of my rig.
About to go on a cruise on a 3 month contract, where I'm bringing my W/D/W rig to test in a professional context for the first time. Only thing I'm wondering is how much of the semi-dry signal (not completely dry, Boss DC-2w and Walrus M1 included) I should blend into the wet channel. I'm using a Source Audio Collider so I'm able to blend it in. Otherwise I would do kill-dry, but I want my DC-2w and M1 to be in stereo and not too prominent, like you explained in your 'Stevie Ray Vaughan Tone'-video. Big thanks for all your advice, you've really helped me a lot :)
Cool video! But are you really comparing apples to apples when it comes to effects if you are running everything in front of 2 amps vs in parallel with your dry sound in WDW? The way I am hearing it, your stereo sound is very "effected" and the WDW samples are more "dry". How about comparing the WDW setup you mentioned to a stereo rig that uses a slave head, or preamp/power amp, and effects in parallel to the dry tone? I am struggling with this myself right now......trying to determine which way I want to go......either WDW setup my Eventide Eclipse doing my 100% wet delay/ambience vs a dedicated stereo rig with my amp slaved, into a Eventide H7600, and power amp/cabs. There are pros and cons to both.... :)
unless you have a lot of effect units... I have stuff like a Switchblate GL, H8000FW to many pedals. I'm always back to guitar straight in 1 channel (or only using 1 sound) amp, only playing with guitar's knob. It's only me, I'm not a tech guy. I basically like tube sound. ps: I have all the gear rackmount, shelves, wire, stereo old carvin 50w SS amp etc... I guess I'm gonna wire it up someday, it's been years. I more motivated only because I moved to a new house where I'm gonna put everything at reach in the same room.
QUESTION: If I use the lineout on my amp and go into my pedals... am I risking damaging my pedals? I mean my pedals are built for instrument level, not line level. Or is this just a 20DB difference?
Most line out boxes (all that I recommend) have level controls so you can adjust the level down to whatever you want. Really what you're trying to adjust is the output to the level that won't clip your pedals following the line-out.
I just bought my first fuzz pedal(J.B. mini fuzz face).I have one of the small suhr buffers first in my 16 pedal pedalboard. Will that buffer interfere with the fuzz face(I put the fuzz first in the chain)Will the buffer mess with the fuzz running after it)???The fuzz is before the buffer.Sorry for the confusing way that I phrased this question. My buffer was first before I added the fuzz face. Should I just remove the buffer?I have strymon pedals buffering the end of my chain and a Lehle volume pedal after my dirt pedals.What do you think?
Usually you should be fine using the buffer after the Fuzz. This might change if you use any other effects that do change their sound depending on the fact that there is a buffer in the signal path. Just do a comparison with and without the buffer and then you can decide if you want to keep it in the chain. If it sounds good, keep it. Just trust your ears. By the way - cable length can have a massive impact on the sound as well. So if you want to gig with your rig, be sure to check everything out with the same cables you are going to be using live.
I've been itching to try stereo. This setup is simpler than i expected. Would I not need some sort of ground loop isolation after the stereo split to the amps?
If you are using two amps for stereo, you could potentially have a ground loop issue. Lehle P-split is a box made for using two amps and it will have a ground lift on it to correct the issue. It also sends separate isolated signals to the amps.
This is really cool for solo guitar but the minute you need to mix for a full band in a song, everything goes LCR anyway with Bass, Drums, Vocals taking up your center channel. So how is this supposed to end up working in that context?
Context is important. If it's guitar driven music or in the studio, for sure this is great to have the option to have three channels and the producer can have a lot to work with for the guitar tone and the processing. In live contexts you can run into situations where it's not worth it when the guitar is more ornamental in a band setting and not the showcase instrument.
Is Wet/Dry/Wet worth the extra effort? Tell me below!
Yes it is. With the helix, this is definitely a game changer. 👍🏼👍🏼
it is ABSOLUTELY worth it, and once you go W/D/W, there is no turning back. I have a 3 amp setup with W/D/W in the middle powered by a modified jet city going to a selection v-30 and then take a tap with a Bray line-out box and go into an eventied micro-pitch pedal and into a PA amp and then into a 2x12 cab wired stereo. On the other-side of my A/B/Y switch I have a Marshal Origin 20c and FHRD in wet/dry and or stereo with 3 cables that I control with an HXFX. There is NO sound I can't create almost. And I put it all together well under $2750 buying it used. I've had professional guitarists plug into my rig and shake their head who have spent a lot more.
Yes..it is.
for just playing at home and even recording (depends on what you're trying to do) if you're willing to put in the effort then sure do whatever but live it is so hilariously impractical and gives absolutely zero benefit. mono, dual mono, and wet dry if done right i think make sense but stereo and wdw provide no benefit for how much extra work, money, and possible problems compared to other ways of running things
So how are you getting signal from the two amps in stereo to the interface? What speakers did you use for each amp when stereo? Wouldn't using two different amps immediately put the stereo rig at a disadvantage?
I watch many guitar, electronic and technical channels on youtube. You are by far the best speaker on this platform as I know it. Thank you.
Wow! Thanks!
WET/DRY Masterrace like TPS is doing it, nails it for me ,super easy to set up, no hustle with the sound guy everything down the center, no fiddling around with 1000 options. Just two amps one driven one clean with reverb delay mod !
The way they run it isn't really wet/dry/wet - it's more an elaborate splitting system with all the pedals in series into one amp (wet and dry), and then some amps with just the dry pedal. It's more like Dry, Wet+Dry, Wet+Dry. It doesn't resemble the parallel nature of the processing effects in stereo as an actual wet/dry/wet rig, it also puts multiple preamp and power amp stages together where the wet/dry/wet rig feeds the same preamp and power amp to the wet effects in stereo. Frequently, this way of splitting multiple amps can riddle your rig with ground loops, and host of polarity (phase) issues which make this alternative, to me at least, more complicated than just doing it properly as it was done in the 80's and 90's.
I don't know when you broke 100k subscriptions, but congratulations. The videos are really excellent, in information, playing, and tone.
Thank you very much!
There is nothing like a wet/dry/wet rig. Once you experience that sound of 100% dry guitar combined with stereo, 100% wet fx...it is glorious! There are some things to consider if you are playing live and that is dealing with PA systems that are bridged mono and not stereo or inadequate sound guys.
In the studio, this is a powerful tool to be able to do but live, it can be a pain in the ass. If you use this live, you need to explain to the sound man what you are doing and hopefully, they have enough available channels to give you 3 channels. I quit playing live with a wet/ dry/ wet rig and currently play one amp. Fx wise, I'll occasionally use a chorus but typically it is reverb and a ducked delay setting....
I was listening to this on my car stereo. It really does make things sound more dimensional and less flat, Not that the stereo sounded flat, but it was definitely not as dimensional as the wet dry wet
Thanks for listening!!!
Per this conversation and the Chairmen conversation yesterday, I will experiment with WDW for acoustic. Love the L R Baggs Para DI, so I will use that. I also have the Musicom Parallelizer and will use that also. Thanks for the idea, Mason!
Have fun!
I'm currently touring with WDW setting with two Fender Princetons for stereo and a VOX AC30 for mono dry on stage, splitting the signal right after dry chain (drives, Gamechanger's Pedal Plus and Bigsby, Empress's tape echo, Union's Evermore, MXR Uni Vibe, Freeze EHX, POG EHX, bass Big Muff EHX, Cantrell wah and volume pedal). The Princetones are loaded with lush sounding stereo R1 reverb, Avalanche Run, D1 delay, Flint Strymon vib/rev and Ola Strymon chorus. JHS's Artificial blonde introduces stereo chain, since it runs mono-in stereo-out. 💪As a lead vocalist I really enjoy the WDW setting, with all three amps tightly behind me, immersed to the max in sound. AC30 giving the extra spunk, delivers push and greater bass response and at the same time clarity for my FOH engineer. It's such a beautiful configuration, it just can't be matched wit the "stereo only" setup I've been live using prior to WDW. 🙌Same goes for studio. WDW works so well on Fender Rhodes, Wurly, guitars, lap-steels, pedal-steels ... And, in my case, it's all-tube WDW with gorgeous sweet sounding amps, running them as clean as possible at low volume (1-2), as an all-tube effects platform, with treble and bass knobs on 1968 reissue Princetons cranked all the way up. A huge-sounding setting worth every effort. Well ... We're in it for the sound, aren't we? 🤩
explain this again. How are you running 3 amps if you are realistically splitting (to two??)
@@suqies As I mentioned above: after mono chain I split the signal, so all the dry mono effects are patched to AC30. The same signal, including the mono effects chain, continues to wet stereo chain, with its final destination 2 Princetons, left and right.
I do the exact same thing I split the mono right before my stereo pedals and run two devilles on the stereo and the mono to my budda sounds fantastic
@@TheLK157Yeeey! :)
I came to parallel effects first through playing bass and appreciating how it allowed the low end to stay thick and punchy regardless of effects being used.
When I started to get more serious about electric guitar wet/dry/wet made sense for similar reasons. Just as in the above examples you played the guitar is more focussed and punchy and there is a greater flexibility in how that interacts with the wet effects. There are so many great and easy, pedalboard-friendly options out there now for running wet/dry/wet it’s really easy to do!
Thanks for the comment! I agree, way more punchy or even more subtle if you want the wet that way, or way more over the top.
Most of the venues where I play have poor enough acoustics - whether it is the room or PA or both - that I don't know whether the subtleties of WDW will have a significant impact, unless perhaps it cleans up the mud a bit. However, even if the room completely negates the benefit for the audience, I hear a significant difference. I love the way the pristine dry cuts through and the wet seems to have more depth without so much mud. The sound inspires me. And when I'm inspired, I play better. The good stuff gets drawn out. And that does translate to the audience.
I use a frequency splitter on my bass rig and keep the low end compressed and dry. It makes a world of difference.
It’s worth it, and there are ways to get the clarity without breaking the bank. I’ve been able to get WDW in our church’s mono mix using a Rolls Stereo MX28 (small 3-ch mixer) on my pedal board.
Using a POD Go I put the stereo FX loop block after the cab block, run a TRRS splitter sending L-side to ch1, then R-side to a Big Sky then to ch2. After the fx loop block in the POD Go are my delays which are 100% mix, and go from the L-main out to ch3. Not exactly textbook but I’ve really enjoyed it, and it has its switching limitations.
Nice!!!
Great video and very clear on the differences. I have played with both and agree having an untainted guitar signal mixed with wet stereo blanketing it sounds so full and clear. If I were playing a sit down and listen show, I would absolutely go wet/dry/wet. If I played a noisy bar with people talking and glassies klinking, they are getting series/wet quick and dirty set up.
Thanks for sharing!
Maybe there's a different vibe in the room. But, listening to this through a pair of high-end Warfedale speakers, the stereo sounds better to me with a wider sound. This is a tough road to try and go down, given that a w/d/w setup is a major investment. Yet, there's no where do go and hear a setup like this before making that decision. I was hoping this would shed some light on it, but it looks like I won't really know until I wind up with three amps. I do very much appreciate the effort and explanation you put into this.
I played stereo from 87’ to 2017. I now have a small W/D\W rig. If you have a stereo P.A. or play small rooms, its the difference between sounding like a club cover band and sounding like a show. If you can’t be bothered, that’s cool. We always sound better than “that band last week”…. The secret is to not use effects all the time.
Thanks for sharing!
Very interesting video!
Thank you for inserting a Michael Landau arpeggio that plays in Juan Carlos Baglietto's "Media Luz En Paris" at 7:40! 👍👏👏👏
A song that very few know that Michael Landau plays there !!! 😉
Yes, such a great song!
For me, as an addicted guitar player of the session heroes of the 80s, I always preferred playin’ in Stereo when using the chorus or pitch modulation, while wet/dry/wet is better for the crunch/lead parts, where the dry signal is in center, and delays or reverbs are mixed on the left and on the right channel
You can still increase the mix of your wet effects on wet/dry/wet to enhance those processing tones.
WDW really worth! It is just amazing, and i have done it even with reaper using mixers for paralleling delay and reverb ...
Agreed!
Thanks Mason. I’ve been wanting to experiment with stereo vs w/d/w.
W/D/W has truer transients around the notes in the examples, though I would have loved to hear them A/B’d back to back with no talking in between. Love your videos man.
Glad to help!
I have w/d/w and it's jolly fun to play through.
Playing in a band a guitar player needs to find a narrow hole in the mix and fill it with the simplest sound. I am guilty too, but bedrooms are the place where you can explore every nuance of your sound. Not at a gig or on a record. You will never hear this level of nuance in a band.
Live, perhaps that's true, especially if the guitar is ornamental in the music and not the driver.
Michael Landau has entered the chat. Edit: seriously though, I played a small club gig last night with a wet/ dry (TPS wet/dry) rig with two combos. The amps were not mic’d and I needed a bigger sound. I can say with hand on heart that non-guitar and guitar people were saying how good the guitar sound was. It encourages you to enjoy using trem/vibrato, chorus and big delays as well. The band is two singers - one on electro acoustic through the PA a, bassist, drummer, and me on electric. I used two compact 1x12 Morgan amps, a small board and a Goodwood Audio splitter with phase correction and ground lift for the wet/dry signal management. I enjoyed playing more, the audience got a better band sound, and everyone’s a winner. For me, it’s worth the extra package to load in and out. I appreciate everyone’s situation differs and I agree with you about finding your space. I have an Empress ParaEQ on the board and was tweaking during soundcheck to fit in.
I’m gonna try ampless wet dry wet at my church, I’ll let you know if this is true 😂
I agree, but disagree! Did you ever get to see Van Halen live after roughly, 1989? Preferably the ou812, and later sound live? Unbelievable full sound! But on an album, doesn’t work. But live, 1 guitarist, a bass player, drummer… sounds amazing!!
This was a great juxtaposition. I appreciate your effort on it. WDW sounds SO much more clear and coherent than stereo. I will we trying this out.
great vlog - really appreciate the time and energy you put into them. I am learning allot.
Glad to hear it!
I look forward to your videos every week! You always have the most interesting and nerdy subject matter and I just love it. Keep it up!
In regards to this video, I see the benefits of w/d/w but I am personally satisfied with a stereo setup. I use a FM3/fx/switcher board anyway and am direct and it’s glorious enough in my ears. Granted I’m able to run all wet fx post and in parallel via the digital fx chain and takes away some of the clarity issues inherent with a traditional stereo setup.
Thanks for watching!
Check out the JET Pedals Red Sea Stereo Parallel FX splitter for blending in two amplifier pedals. If you have one pedal that mimics tweed fender amplifiers and another pedal that mimics a dumble amplifier you can now blend them into a stereo mix. Try to make a video lesson about blending two different amplifier type pedals. This pedal is placed at the end of your effects pedal board.
I run dry 100 watt head into mesa oversized line out into a wet fractal then out to a mashall 9200 100/100 to 2 marshall 1960s. Fukn glorious
Nice!
@@VertexEffectsInc i belive thats the easy strip down to the point i can help descibe the signal flow doing wet dry wet set up
I've got to give this a try - sounds great and I love the combination of the clarity and the wet. Thx!
Glad you like it!
Yes W/D/W is the solution I’m looking for. Tell me…Is it possible to learn this power?
A couple of weeks ago Noah Guthrie opened for Willie Nelson at a State Fair. I’m laughing my ass off imagining Rhett Shull handing the sound man 3 leads and explaining how much better his w/d/w is going to be.
ret is an idiot.
*rhat
It can be hard for some guys that are green sound men...guys that know about recording should be able to handle it.
You get this center point for the dry sound and the echoes and reverb sit behind it giving a sense of space and dimension with wet dry wet. But I agree it’s daunting to start down that rabbit hole of gear
Thanks for watching and the comment!
WDW mega fan. And it really doesn't need to be complicated either. Can start off with an ABY, A for Dry chain into Amp 1, B for Wet chain, ending with a stereo pedal run into the 2 satellite amps. It 'can' be a lot more involved; but really doesn't need to be.
ABY thing isn't wet/dry/wet...it's just an elaborate splitting system that is often riddled with polarity (phase) issues and involves more preamps, power amps, and cabinets than is really needed to pull off the classic execution.
i do three amps with stereo delay > reverb > trem > leslie sim > reverb going to the outside amps, but don't kill dry. so i guess that's more of a damp/dry/damp? i also run the inside amp out of phase to kill some flub.
You have some dry in them, that's OK for some things and can still sound good.
@@VertexEffectsInc for sure, I go for some murky and washed tones. As soon as I get really into stereo or these sort of hybrid setups I go back to pure mono and that’s super fun too.
Fabulous guitar playing, btw. I am watching/listening through android bluetoothed to a JBL flip5. I'm kind of a big dummy so I will probably watch this video several times breaking it down into small portions so that I can understand what's going on. It is all very interesting to me. I need to say that if you've ever gotten into your vehicle and turned on XM and you hear those weird digital upper frequency Havoc for lack of a better term that is what I am hearing on most of the Reverb tails. The only time that weird upper frequency digital degradation goes away is when you say you're turning off the delay and you start playing from 1710 through 1809 and my gosh that Reverb is so fabulous you can hear the Tails and everything I can even hear the slight percussiveness of you stopping each note or chord one of these days I'm going to buy that steel string pedal in the meantime thank you very much I am totally amazed
Wow! Thanks so much for watching and the detailed comment!
Well done demo on the two effects- WDW definitely has more definition, dimension and separation in between the mix , but certainly isn’t practical for many impromptu situations. Enjoyed the presentation, and nice playing btw Jason!
Thank you very much!
IDK about for touring, however in the room with 3 cabs … it’s a different kind of clarity inside a wash of efx.
🤘🏽W🤘🏽D🤘🏽W🤘🏽for life. (Even digitally modeled versions due to logistical restrictions ).
We have some good work arounds for digital cabs, mics, and power amps for the wet.
@@VertexEffectsInc 🤘🏽
@@VertexEffectsInc even a W/D rig does “that thing “ that WDW does.
I actually prefer the stereo sound. I like the feel of “togetherness” vs. the wet dry wet which almost sounds too “separated” for my liking. Just my preference, no right or wrong!
The question is more, if they make sense outside of a studio setup. Because in a studio w/d/w is pretty achievable through plugins and you have even more control through that process (even if you decide to reamp later) or using a good split like a Lehle P split into the Wet stuff, before using IRs in the box. For live use it's a bit overkill in many setups. Unless you work with a trusted soundguy it can end rather horrible and most of those guys would be rather happy with just a W/D so they can control the effect level. W/D/W also means that you have to run your monitors or IEM in stereo to even enjoy it. And i doubt the average audience member will even hear a difference.
For the studio. Do it if it's your thing. For anything else, it seems like not worth the effort and cost.
The P Split or any splitter before the wet effects doesn't put them in a parallel path or after the amp and before the speaker for their own separate processing. You're still running serial chains of pedals with a splitter and running into multiple preamps and power amp sections and speaker cabs. This can become a real polarity (phase) nightmare.
I like both for different reasons. The stereo is much more of an old school sound for those like myself who are looking for a warmer tone with more glue. An advantage of stereo is the ability to use two significantly different amps for a fuller sound. That said, W/D/W is definitely spacier and cleaner for the style of music that requires pristine time-based tones paralleling crisp dries. Thanks for this overdue comparison of the two setups!
Thanks for watching!
totally sold on the WDW, but my biggest takeaway was that I need to go and learn Lights! And maybe buy a Dimension C. Great video.
Good choice!
It took me two of your videos to figure out that one frigging thing was your recording interface. LOL I thought it was like a H9 looking fx pedal or something. LABEL THE STUFF please!
WDW sounded so much better...so much! The guitar wasn't muddled up. All the nuances were distinct, and the effects sounded right....just like the famous recordings. I will be making the switch asap to WDW as your channel has given me the knowledge to do so now. Beautiful heart felt intro on your first example! Peace, love, and respect...thank you!
Wet Dry Wet is the move IMO!
Interesting stuff. For what it's worth. I had a crude stereo rig when playing in the 70s. My Redmere amp (if anyone recalls them) had some built in effects and in the rear of the amp, a stereo out. IIRC, only the flange or chorus utilised it but it was a brilliant result. One day we plugged in my mates Oberheim synth into my amp then ran the stereo into his keyboard rig. There was a programme on the OBX that had a sensational portamento setting where every note went on a trip resolving itself to all the others at the time. That went via the stereo rig and all the different portamento runs went right/left etc.
A pity we couldn't really use it live. Too much stuff to carry around.
More recently I've found the following to be useful as a reasonable set up. A guitar amp with a feed into a Headload Prodigy or similar and from that, the direct out into a DV Mark multiamp without any amp model in the chain. If you have the stereo version then even more options but the mono is fine. The benefit of this is only in logistics because the effects are built in so no problems of having tons of floor space that isn't available in small venues and also they multiamp can be controlled by a small midi pedal. Personally I prefer this type of set if we can get away with it. It's a decent compromise.
Thanks for sharing!
7:30 Mason, I love that tune "Media Luz En Paris" by Juan Carlos Baglietto. Mike Landau did the guitars on that recording. Love it.
Yes, great song!
i made my own lil rig starting with a jfet splitter so i could have another speaker besides the pa technically i realize this is not WDW but i am still proud of my work as it sounds very good when you are there . i run a DIGITAL modeler - nux mg30 - to the pa , then a center channel gauss speaker (like a jbl - aluminum dust cap) a single 12 with a diy 50 watt head with a few pedals . the diy head has a jfet marshall superbass circuit and i use a noise gate with a carl martin plexitone on that channel. it sounds really good in this config - to my ear i set the center channel amp a bit louder than the pa and i adjust the gain and set that cleaner or less dirt on the center channel . on the wet side -custom nuxmg30 patches with custom ir's i also run a mooer ocean machine which is a dual delay with reverb on the wet side , with a exp pedal set for the fx volume and then a tap tempo switch for both delays . i love that rig but its a bit much for our duo - it has to fit in a compact toyota, i have herniated disks , we have to lug the gear pretty far from the parking lot to the pavilion , so. . it is nice to have options and i switch up often . the entire rig runs on rechargeable li ion battery's .we run a 48 volt e-bike battery to power the pa which is a 600 watt class d 150 150 300 2.1 set up with a pair of 10 inch pa speakers and a gk neo 210 for the "sub" . it works very well , but i spent a long time to get where we are now , and i am finished. i have options for my center channel amp . i have three amps i have built with internal battery packs . one has a built in noise gate with a les luis on one side and a angry Charlie on the other . i have another with a run off groove tone mender in front of a class d amp and that one i use a modeler pedal. its nice having choices . more recently i have been working on much smaller micro rig for us so we can take this stuff to a local park and play when the weather is nice . the micro rig is much smaller and i have all that nailed down now. i built a few different iterations for the bass which is always the challenge . last night i built a 10 inch bass guitar speaker into an old XAM cabinet , which was jc pennys hifi house brand . its a great lil cab. it has a class d 100 mono amp and a 3 band eq , runs off 10 18650 cells 8 for the amp and two for the eq . we haven't tested it yet but we have a pair of hartke 6.5 half aluminum cone half paper speakers in smaller sub enclosures that run off a 50x2 amp and i am waiting for a good stereo eq board to come in as we ended up being shipped 3 of those that had issues - chinesium - its not always wise to order the cheapest stuff unless you are prepared to deal with some duds and then fight to get a refund but we have done ok . ali express is cheaper than ebay for all this stuff . if you want to play around with battery powered stuff class d is the way to go . i realize a tube amp will sound better - good luck with that - powering tube gear with battery's . that's above my paygrade but if you heard the rig you wouldn't thing it sound harsh or cold . this video features a wet wet wet wet rig but .... th-cam.com/video/FQ7mT-vBci0/w-d-xo.html you get the idea . we live in an apartment so we have a few areas in our place where we are able to play using headphone rigs . i have built some headphone amps with burr brown ic chips and little eqs with the same , we like to use SUPERLUX brand headphones as they provide spectacular performance for affordable price tag . what we do is not exactly in line with the vertex philosophy as the main stipulation is battery power. we stared playing around with this idea in 2005 , got serious in 2010 so we do try . to my ear it doesn't sound " digital" or harsh so ... maybe we could squeek by and the all analog cork sniffing group of guitar enthusiasts would give us a pass. t we are not really doing this for any other reason than we love to do it and we can not push air at home . we played on the patio 2 years ago - i used pc speakers for the mains , my wife had a 6 and i had a 6 inch speaker and the cops came at 5 pm . our neighbors live there hip hop and subwoofers , guitars not so much . having written over 500 pieces of very simple music in my life i feel no need to say i am sorry for my gear even if it isnt something SRV or gilmour played thru . not everyone wishes to emulate someone else's thing but you wont win any popularity contests taking this path , thats one thing for sure . big fan of vertex ! exceptional quality content here so i couldnt help myself with my massive comment.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
This time as i watch/listen to video i am able to hear the details of the upper frequencies and the echo/verbs tails very clearly THROUGHOUT. I also grasp better what you are teaching. (Useing same setup of cel to flip5 to listen) i can hear the ever so slight mudding of the tone in the series scenarios, although fabulous sound and performance. I can also hear the more clear tonalities during the W/D/W parallel scenarios. The clean tone continues through the mix as all the mod and echo and verb seem to leave a wake of beauty behind the tones like an aura that dissapates in a nice way.
Thanks for watching!
What would you call a 3 amp setup? 1 Dry drive amp plus stereo to 2 amps with drive and effect loops.
3 amps? How do you get the signal to them? Dry, Dry+Wet, Dry+Wet. It's a problem for polarity/phase and also doesn't put anything in parallel, it's just an elaborate splitting system.
I hope someday to go a step further, W/D/D/W Basically it's WDW but I run a dry signal left and a doubled dry signal right (like the TC Mimiq) and then stereo fx in parallel.
Cool!
I am dumping my entire rig and getting a good acoustic guitar. Haha just kidding.
I've been experimenting with simulating W/D/W with my pedalboard and interface. Where I plug the guitar into a DI box the goes into the one of my inputs of my interface. I also take a line from the through on the DI and send it to the front of my pedal board which returns to the interface on two XLR cables to two other inputs on the interface. I can then, later re-amp the pure DI back through the pedalboard without any modulation, delay or reverb to get the dry channel. It works pretty well provided that I don't use any wah or pitch bending as I would have to double that aspect on the fly. It also wouldn't work in a live situation. I'm not sure if there would be a way to pull this off without a complete overhaul of my rig.
Cool!
Definitely love the W/D/W setup more sonically…more clarity in dynamics without compromising the wet FX sound. I am curious though, what do you think about the W/D/W in comparison to running a stereo setup with the wet FX in parallel? Would you still have a stronger center image with the W/D/W because you have the mono dry channel, or could you possibly have a wider sound with the definition if you run two seperate amps but have your wet FX run in parallel as opposed to series?
I prefer the parallel effects for sure if you can do it that way, it's a bit harder to do routing wise but worth it if you have 100% wet effects, or pedals that are capable of doing that. I use the Source Audio Collider because it goes 100% wet and can put the reverb and delay in parallel in one box without an external mixer.
My rule of thumb… go all out in the studio but keep it practical in a live setting.
Cool!
Being mostly a live musician, the stereo rig sounds more useful for me. When you add live sounds to mix, the guitar effects always sound less impactful. I've very little experience in studio.
Thanks for the comment!
Could you please show how to make a small wet dry wet rig that would contain all tubes, one main dry tube amp, two additional 112 cans, and a stereo pier amp?
Do you need buffers with wet dry wet? If so do you have a diagram for signal chain with buffers for wet dry wet?
Yes, definitely on what goes into the front of the amp and on the input where the guitar enters for sure. If your stereo wet pedals are feeding a power amp they will also needs stereo output buffers and maybe some isolation as well.
I was the Ron Popiel of guitar players. I would find my tone, then set it and forget it. The variety of tone you can achieve now is amazing! But wet dry wet is a bridge too far for my boomer needs. Don't let this old guy hold back you young tone hounds! Just remember... Clean is beautiful 😍
Thanks for watching!
I got a question, would really appreciate your input here
- Scenario: running a dry signal (on both L/R) with parallel mixed L/R fully wet delay/reverb and then sending L/R outputs to FOH (L has dry signal + L fully wet signal mixed in parallel, and R has dry signal + R fully wet signal mixed in parallel)
Question: If the FOH pans L/R down to center during performance, am I likely to run into Phase issues?
The stereo is way more dramatic and has a place, but the wdw is just nice and full and probably better for most applications.
For a really fair comparison, wouldn't you need to have the chorus and collider in parallel in the WDW example? You've got the chorus feeding the collider running 100% wet for WDW, so the chorus returns are getting 100% delayed/verbed. Whereas in the stereo example some off the chorus passes through the dry path of the collider. Minor difference I know, but it all adds up :)
No the chorus is outside the mixer in both examples so that's a constant. It also wouldn't be in a mixer on any of the classic rack rigs since it doesn't got 100% wet. There is still an analog dry path in the Collider.
@@VertexEffectsInc Read my post again, you'd need a mixer for the WDW example for both to be the same.
I felt like I was being transported into a Richard Marx hit from the mid to late 80’s, and I can’t emphasize enough how much of a compliment I mean that as… 👏👏👏
Yes!!!
I have a question somewhat related to wet dry wet. In order to keep multiple amps from buzzing I use a passive Radial Stagebug (SB-6) line isolator as a final output that uses transformers to lift the ground of the L and R amps.
The literature says its frequency response is 20Hz to 20kHz and “automatically configured hi-z or lo-z signal chains”. Are there any impedance issues or tone suck problems that could be caused by a transformer based line isolator in my signal chain? Thanks Mason!
You should only have one amp and stereo power amps. Most line out boxes have ISO'd outs like the Suhr for example. You shouldn't need two iso'd outs for the stereo power amp.
Trying to think the last stage that I played with more than 30" of space in the backline. If you are the only guitarist in the band, maybe it makes sense to run something other than a mono rig. With two guitarists in my band, and a different soundman and PA at every gig, mono is the easiest way to go for me.
The way we ran this wet/dry/wet rig only used one amp and a cab sim for the wet processing stereo effects. No extra space needed compared to a mono rig.
I like the Xotic blender. It might blend before the preamp but it's far simpler. However stereo is amazing. Never heard of W/D/W like this
Nothing like some Neal Schon riffs 🍻
Lights-Journey
I like wet/dry/wet,, first reason is your best amp gives you your core tone,, but i don’t want to use xtra amps,,, just PA speakers or house speakers that can run a digital stereo simulation of an amp.
good idea
with an analog core amp and digital simulation for wet you wil run into phase issues due to the latency in the digital simulation
@@ABCDEF-ks5op I guess I will have to stick with powered kemper and passive kemper speaker and use the stereo outs for now then? I could use the direct out as dry and use stereo out to PA? Still would prefer a tube amp on the dry. Sounds like im gonna need a stereo cab zeuss.
@@mrnewty2 The only way it wil work without phase issues and latency is if you run 2 analog tube amps together. I do it like that a mashall style amp as dry a little bit driven, and a fender style wet set clean in which I run modulation delay & reverb sounds fantastic and is super easy to set up for the sound guy. Check out That Pedal show Wet/Dry they explain every possibility and issues in detail with examples
Greig - that's what I'm doing here using the GFI Cab Zeus for the stereo cab sim for the wet. You won't get latency if you have the analog dry path intact.
I use wet-dry-wet too, never looked back to normal stereo or mono ever since. Yeah it’s impractical to move such a rig for small gigs, but that’s why I have my Quad Cortex and my “essential pedals” board as backup to mimic what I have in WDW setup for such gigs. Just hard to get back to non WDW even with just the backup rig, my ears just used to the clarity and depth it provides😅
Love me some wet/dry/wet!
Ohhhhh Ohhhhhh Oh Oh Oh........ When the lights, go down in the city. When the sun shines on the bay.......... jk. Sounded very tuneful and sweet!
Thanks!!!
First riff - Mad About You (Toto)😀
Cool video.. problem arises when playing live. How to have a consistent mix both on stage and front of house.
Yes, but also in any situation a sound man that is not good at his/her job can screw up the tone just as well in stereo or wet/dry/wet.
That first wet/dry/wet reminds me of Alan Parson's - To One In Paradise but less swirly.
I think this video misses a major reason to go w/d/w, which is preservation of your dry signal. For big clean spacey sounds it doesn’t matter too much, but when using a sweet dirt sound you may not want your main signal cluttered with effects. With a w/d/w you can control exactly how much processing you want to hit the ear without compromising your dry tone.
Running 2 amps w/d with 2 more running stereo.
I like how the dry gives that xtra clarity and bonus that allows momentary opportunities of lead boost control to cut through without affecting wet signal.
Maybe I missed it, but this whole discussion (Wet/Dry/Wet, Wet/Dry, Wet+Dry/Wet, etc) is about live performance, and live performance *only,* right? In a studio/recording context, it's all academic using current technology; you can easily set up any configuration "in the box", whether you have one amp, two amps, or zero amps.
Only if you're recording just the dry signal without any wet effects already added
The art of applying wet/dry/wet ist to eliminate the dry signal from the wet signals completely. While this requires a lot of planning, special wiring and effects devices and / or mixers which support that, this can turn out to be this challenging that almost nobody hast the chance to do it. So, most of the wet/dry/wet rigs are actually wet+dry/dry/wet+dry rigs, which sound completely different.
I do wet/dry/wet since 1981, so I have tried out a lot. Let me explain how a real wet/dry/wet rig works: let‘s assume we want to have modulation, delay and reverb as wet signals without any dry portion on this wet signals. We go out of the amp into the modulation effect. The output of the modulation effect is kill dry. The delay is then fed with the modulated signal plus the dry signal from the amp, otherwise the delay would only be fed with the modulated signal. The reverb needs to be fed with the dry signal of the amp plus the modulated signal out of the modulation effect plus the delay out of the delay effect. We do not want to get delays from the modulated signal only, we do also not want to get reverb from the delayed signal only.
The idea is to get only the effects parts on the wet outputs while each of the wet effects is triggered by original plus the effects out of the devices before. Confusing?
It took me a while to recognize that any dry signal on the wet outputs will destroy the approach of completely splitting dry from wet. But it‘s worth the efforts. Nothing else is done in the studio. Nothing else you would do in a DAW. And it sounds great on stage.
There might be FOH people which do not accept three signals anyway. But I mostly made the experience that FOH mixers appreciate the complete separation from dry to wet a lot, for they easily can adjust the pure effects signals from the dry signal.
It would be great to show such a setup, doing a comparison between real wet/dry/wet and wet+dry/dry/wet+dry.
Not exactly, it wasn't till the 1990's where you started seeing 100% wet cabs being used for wet/dry/wet. Most of the classic rigs all had some dry in the wet cabinets, whether it be Lukather, Landau, EVH, etc. Most guys never used their chorus effects (mod) in kill dry, it was normally the last effect before the first mix stage of the 100% wet effects that fed the mixers in stereo. The H3000 or SPX90 were used for some Micro Pitch Detune (which sorta was like mod), that helped widen the chorus sounds. But Reverb, Delay, those were usually what was in the mixers and 100% wet, not the chorus sound. In fact, most of these were even capable of going 100% wet, like the Tri Stereo Chorus for example.
Cool..
Now we just need to find sound engineers who will ALLOW us to use w/d/w live...😅
Give them gifts!
@@VertexEffectsInc
At least it's worth tryin'..
But for some reasons they want the guitar stuck in mono in the center of the mix, while they give all their 'bellz and whistles', schmoo and schmellz to the keys.
In stereo..🙄
It's ironic..
Maybe I'll show up with a keytar on my next gig..😅
Although this is mostly for guitar, on bass I usually do something similar, running a channel with just clean or drive signal and synths, octaves, delays, etc. on a second channel. Honestly I think is makes for a much better definition than just blended effects on one channel.
Don’t forget a third channel for a clean Di, use the Di for your lower frequencies and the amps for character really helps clean up a mix.
@@tarkett8529 my clean/drive channel is always a mix of amp + DI
Right on!
It is definitely worth it for me but if you show up at a club, the audio tech will look at you like you're nuts. At very most I'll use a stereo rig, one side in the loop and the other side into another amp loop
Yes. That's the challenge! But a bad sound guy can ruin a mono rig just as easily.
I really think Mason's opinion matters..great job dude.
Thanks for watching!
You can simulate it with a fractal unit that can run effects in parallel. In my case obviously they cannot be divided in 3 out cabinets, but the sound especially in the high gain territory is much better.
High gain digital is better than analog amps?
@@VertexEffectsInc This can be discussed :).. But i would saying that this configuration dry/wet sound much better with my fractal... Also with my jvm adding effect at the end rather than in the effects loop. The effects loop is very good anyway.
Love it! Subscribed
How could one do wet dry wet, but the dry single is a mic cab which is then split for the wet path. Similar to studio effect but live
This is what he is doing here. The load box is just stealing a line level signal after the pre/post amp signal and sending that to the fx and the cabzeus. The load box has a speaker thru which connects back to the amps speaker. The amp is then mic'd up and that is your dry channel one.
The line out from the load box feeds the fx that will be stereo such as , chorus, reverb, delay and then to the cabzeus( speaker emulator) which will take two stereo, wet only fx to the mixer board with channel 2 panned hard left and channel 3 panned hard right. Thus, your wet/dry/wet ....
So I have an an orange head with no effects loop. Does the bray or suhr line out fix that? What is the difference in a splitter and the Bray line out as far as the overdrive not running through them to the wet effects ?
You can run wet effects after the amp, like an effects send, however you need something to return to with the wet effects. I used a Stereo Cab Zeus.
Can you explain how this would work with a stereo amp with or without effect loop(s)?
Any recommendations when choosing amps or stereo amps related to above question?
This was shown how to do with stereo amps without effects loop, if you used stereo amps with effects loops you just run the send to the input of the first wet effect and then the stereo outputs of the last wet effect would return into both amps fx return. One of the two amps would be used as a glorified power amp.
Hey, do you need to set kill dry on every effect in WDW or just the last one, for example, reverb?
If you don't have a mixer, then don't do kill dry.
Personally I want the sound I make when I play my instrument to be roughly and mechanically the same whether I'm playing at home, jamming with friends or at a gig. This doesn't really seem feasible with even a simplified wet dry wet rig. You gain flexibility but lose that identity of your sound imo. I prefer a stereo rig for this reason because it's just guitar amps, speakers, and pedals. My rig is small-medium sized enough that it can stands alone in that way in all of those situations.
Thanks for sharing!
Can wet dry wet be accomplished with a Fender Prinston which doesn't have an FX loop ?
Yes but you will need more gear to do it.
Great video! Quick question, if my interface only has two inputs, could I do this with two tracks (one dry/one wet) and then record the third wet track separately?
You could only do Wet/Dry, or you could expand it, if it's an Apollo, with the light pipe jack to another group of channels. We've done this with a Presonus with our Apollo Twin at our studio in LA.
Mason trying for the simplest set up to get the WDW sound using a GFI Cabzeus (possibly going to front of house), do I still need to run dual amps or is there a way to do it with just one amp for live performances? Oh and I do have the Source Audio Collider and Source Audio Ventris. I'll go and look for the videos you referenced. I do recall you mentioning how to set it up but I remember being unsure with my mono rig.
You only need one amp, mono amp. Use the line out of that to feed the wet effects in stereo into the Stereo Cab Zeus. The main amp is the dry amp (mic'd) and is channel one, the two sides of the Cab Zeus are channels 2 and 3. Hard pan 2 and 3 in the FOH with your amp (channel 1) up the middle. We have videos on this of my rig.
@@VertexEffectsIncMason I can't thank you enough! I really appreciate the fact that you take time for dolts like me!👍
About to go on a cruise on a 3 month contract, where I'm bringing my W/D/W rig to test in a professional context for the first time. Only thing I'm wondering is how much of the semi-dry signal (not completely dry, Boss DC-2w and Walrus M1 included) I should blend into the wet channel. I'm using a Source Audio Collider so I'm able to blend it in. Otherwise I would do kill-dry, but I want my DC-2w and M1 to be in stereo and not too prominent, like you explained in your 'Stevie Ray Vaughan Tone'-video. Big thanks for all your advice, you've really helped me a lot :)
Thanks so much for watching!
@@VertexEffectsInc thx
Cool video! But are you really comparing apples to apples when it comes to effects if you are running everything in front of 2 amps vs in parallel with your dry sound in WDW? The way I am hearing it, your stereo sound is very "effected" and the WDW samples are more "dry".
How about comparing the WDW setup you mentioned to a stereo rig that uses a slave head, or preamp/power amp, and effects in parallel to the dry tone?
I am struggling with this myself right now......trying to determine which way I want to go......either WDW setup my Eventide Eclipse doing my 100% wet delay/ambience vs a dedicated stereo rig with my amp slaved, into a Eventide H7600, and power amp/cabs. There are pros and cons to both.... :)
When using an attenuator like the Boss Waza Tube do I need a line out box? And where would the attenuator be in the chain?
unless you have a lot of effect units... I have stuff like a Switchblate GL, H8000FW to many pedals. I'm always back to guitar straight in 1 channel (or only using 1 sound) amp, only playing with guitar's knob. It's only me, I'm not a tech guy. I basically like tube sound. ps: I have all the gear rackmount, shelves, wire, stereo old carvin 50w SS amp etc... I guess I'm gonna wire it up someday, it's been years. I more motivated only because I moved to a new house where I'm gonna put everything at reach in the same room.
Thanks for sharing!
QUESTION: If I use the lineout on my amp and go into my pedals... am I risking damaging my pedals? I mean my pedals are built for instrument level, not line level. Or is this just a 20DB difference?
Most line out boxes (all that I recommend) have level controls so you can adjust the level down to whatever you want. Really what you're trying to adjust is the output to the level that won't clip your pedals following the line-out.
Why do we use the line out as opposed to splitting at the fx send or splitting after the dry effects on the board?
I just bought my first fuzz pedal(J.B. mini fuzz face).I have one of the small suhr buffers first in my 16 pedal pedalboard. Will that buffer interfere with the fuzz face(I put the fuzz first in the chain)Will the buffer mess with the fuzz running after it)???The fuzz is before the buffer.Sorry for the confusing way that I phrased this question. My buffer was first before I added the fuzz face. Should I just remove the buffer?I have strymon pedals buffering the end of my chain and a Lehle volume pedal after my dirt pedals.What do you think?
Usually you should be fine using the buffer after the Fuzz. This might change if you use any other effects that do change their sound depending on the fact that there is a buffer in the signal path.
Just do a comparison with and without the buffer and then you can decide if you want to keep it in the chain. If it sounds good, keep it. Just trust your ears. By the way - cable length can have a massive impact on the sound as well. So if you want to gig with your rig, be sure to check everything out with the same cables you are going to be using live.
Yes, put the fuzz before the buffer.
Can the Cab Zeus run out into speakers instead of a DAW and should they be FR cabs or can you use typical guitar speaker cabs?
Great double stop melody
Wow, thanks!
I've been itching to try stereo. This setup is simpler than i expected. Would I not need some sort of ground loop isolation after the stereo split to the amps?
If you are using two amps for stereo, you could potentially have a ground loop issue. Lehle P-split is a box made for using two amps and it will have a ground lift on it to correct the issue. It also sends separate isolated signals to the amps.
Wet dry is worth it if you are raising the bar - if you are a home musician stereo works fine.
Thanks for watching!
Other than the helix, is there another multi effects processor that will do a true w/d/w to run 3 separate amps.
Have a timeline going into a collider if I were going to do this type of setup which one should I kill dry?
This is really cool for solo guitar but the minute you need to mix for a full band in a song, everything goes LCR anyway with Bass, Drums, Vocals taking up your center channel. So how is this supposed to end up working in that context?
Context is important. If it's guitar driven music or in the studio, for sure this is great to have the option to have three channels and the producer can have a lot to work with for the guitar tone and the processing. In live contexts you can run into situations where it's not worth it when the guitar is more ornamental in a band setting and not the showcase instrument.
Not to be confused with Wet Wet Wet
Hey now!
@@VertexEffectsInc Weren't they a boy band back in the 80's?
Wow, yo me the stereo is just so juicy and wide. I love it. I need a second amp.
You and me both!
How about splitting the signal to wet/dry effects and then using a mixer to sum the signal into 1 amp?
It's not wet/dry just a parallel effects chain.