Likely to be as many different definitions as there are people offering an opinion or citing a definition from a source. For me ‘dry’ is in the context of harmonic complexity. Real instruments produce resonances, harmonics, overtones. Which is what to our ears is a primary discriminator between one instrument and another. I recognize ‘dry’, and that term is not restricted to amps it applies to all components, as reproduction of music bereft of the complex harmonic structure I know from listening to live music should exist. Notice how important it is for all of us to get out and listen to live music to recalibrate our memory of what ‘real’ is.
1 Like
To me dry is the lack of bloom and blossom, spatial retrieval, the ability to float
an image in space in a liquid manner…as dynamic as the music being played.
There is a lot more to this but in a nut shell is how I perceive it…]
Best wishes…
Yes, I think one could agree with that.
I wondered why I suddenly started getting emails about this yesterday. Then I see it was about something I posted 3 years ago! LOL
1 Like
You can run, but you cannot hide. 
Welcome back!
2 Likes
Thanks Elk—It has been a most informative year here.
Now if FedEx would quit driving around the greater Denver metro area with my PWST and deliver them tomorrow as they still claim they will do, that will be the icing on the cake
2 Likes
In the electric guitar world, “dry” simply means no reverb.
1 Like
The more I think about it I believe recorded music needs some amount of dryness to make it real/musical/spacious etc. I listened to 2 recordings of Bach’s Cello Suites, Octave Records’ Zuill Bailey and London’s Lynn Harrell. The first was complex, detailed, realistic, rich with some dryness of bowed strings. The second soft and gentle and flaccid.
1 Like
I agree with beef‘s first connection to the reverb thing, but I think that’s not meant here.
I’d say what’s meant with dry in this context is a less organic, colorful, open sound with a controlled but somehow damped, and also not lively, organic and colorful bass.Dry sounding amps often also don’t go very deep in bass at a sufficient level.
Some positively call that very neutral, but that doesn’t help it.
3 Likes
I do not find the descriptor “dry” to be of any help other than when comparing acoustic environments as either dry or wet describing the amount of ambience.
I find “chalky” to similarly be of little use.
For amps, warm/neutral/cool are of some value as descriptive concepts.
1 Like
If not those descriptors, then try sheet rock for a description of dry…
Ever tear out sheet rock and have to clean up the dust after?
That’s dry
best wishes
2 Likes
I think it’s the same as the term „musically“. Those who have a clear definition for themselves, find it very useful and seld-documentary. They just have to ensure others mean the same 
For me personally, e.g. the terms dry and flat (in many audio contexts) are quite exact terms. But for sure, it needs some explanation when I use it
1 Like
I’m with @Elk and @RonP here - to me, Dry takes me to the electric guitar/recording studio world. I also catch myself wondering about chorus/phaser/flanger when people talk about “Mods” on their components… Modulations? oh… right… no.
Kinda makes me wonder if I can get a few more amps and run a wet/dry/wet rig with 6 monoblocks.
By George, I think you’ve got it.
1 Like
Before I ever had a chance to do much high-end listening, I spent a lot of time reading the “underground” magazines and seeing all the odd (to me) words they used to describe sound, and I took them with a healthy grain of salt. I became more of a believer in their use when, after 2-3 years with my first decent system, I upgraded the preamp. I went from the entry-level GAS Thalia to an Apt Holman, and after listening to the Holman for a few weeks, I put the Thalia back in the system just for fun. On hearing it again, the only word that popped into my head to describe the old unit was “thick.” Nothing else was a better fit. It’s been 40 years now, but I still recall it clearly. It was like the images had more poorly-defined edges, making them kind of bleed into one another. A little bit like it lacked focus.
3 Likes
I fully understand and use audio descriptors such as thick, dry, syrupy, muddy, clean, refined, brittle, wet, harsh, haze, veil, polite, musical, tone freak (tone freak describes me perfectly). I should add liquid, smooth, sweet
Descriptors that I tend to use are coherent, confused, focused, diffuse, layered, deep, shallow, dry, warm, reverberant, smeared, etched, organic, artificial, natural, musical, mechanical, hard, harsh, glassy, soft, shimmering, dull, dynamic, and compressed.
1 Like
I love the words “wet” (or liquid) and “dry”. When listening to a saxophone thru tube pre and tube power amps, the saxophone can sound more “liquid”. Playing back that same saxophone recording with inexpensive (value conscious) solid state ss pre and power amps, dry is the perfect descriptor.
It is the same description when people talk after not drinking water for several hours, they will sound dry. Versus speaking just after drinking water, their voice will sound more “liquid”.
1 Like
Beach Boys are a wet sound.
1 Like