"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Laurence Payne wrote:
On 11 Jan 2005 05:17:27 -0800, wrote:
Well, the problem is if you "just invert the phase of either of the
channels" and then listened back in mono, the channels would cancel
each other out and you would end up with a very thin sound. If
you're listening back to the track in the context of the whole mix,
it will probably sound like it just disappeared!
But he think's the problem may be due to one mic being out of phase
in the first place.
Then call it "reversed polarity," which is what it is, and not "out
of phase" which is a general phrase that can encompass a whole lot of
unrelated things.
I didn't call it "out of phase" which I agree can be vague and can be easy
to misunderstand.
I said "invert the phase" which has a pretty unique meaning in most places.
We all seem to know that the problem I was addressing was polarity.
Furthermore, the meaning of the phrase "invert the phase" was even
correctly deduced by the person who took exception to my suggestion.
So, let's review: I knew what I meant and everybody who read it seems to
know what I meant. Leaves only one question - where's the beef?