Hi CW,
Nice to see you back here.
The quote from "Greg Taylor" is addressing how to correct an issue of having the two channels out of phase with respect to each other, i.e., an issue of "relative phase." It does NOT sound like you are facing that issue, because having the two channels out of phase with respect to each other would result, when a mono signal is fed into both channels, in an image that is vague, diffuse, and hard to localize, and in weak bass.
The first major paragraph in the response from "Scott" is pretty much just describing how bridged mono works. The second paragraph answers Greg's question, saying that from a technical (as opposed to a practical) standpoint it doesn't matter which of two methods is used to correct a difference in relative polarity between the two channels (in a situation where balanced XLR interconnects are being used, which would allow the polarity of a channel to be inverted by interchanging pins 2 and 3 on the XLR connector at one end of the cable; alternatively of course the + and - connections to a speaker could be swapped).
What your second post indicates you've just done is to invert "absolute polarity," which as you realize changes the polarity of both speakers at once, keeping them in phase with each other. The audible significance of doing that is controversial, and is recording dependent IMO. To the extent that it may make any difference at all, it can be expected to make the most difference on recordings that have been engineered using "purist" techniques, meaning a minimal number of microphones (e.g., just 2 or 3), with minimal or no subsequent mixing, compression, processing, etc.
Beyond that, I have no particular thoughts about the phasiness you have described hearing.
Best regards,
-- Al
Nice to see you back here.
The quote from "Greg Taylor" is addressing how to correct an issue of having the two channels out of phase with respect to each other, i.e., an issue of "relative phase." It does NOT sound like you are facing that issue, because having the two channels out of phase with respect to each other would result, when a mono signal is fed into both channels, in an image that is vague, diffuse, and hard to localize, and in weak bass.
The first major paragraph in the response from "Scott" is pretty much just describing how bridged mono works. The second paragraph answers Greg's question, saying that from a technical (as opposed to a practical) standpoint it doesn't matter which of two methods is used to correct a difference in relative polarity between the two channels (in a situation where balanced XLR interconnects are being used, which would allow the polarity of a channel to be inverted by interchanging pins 2 and 3 on the XLR connector at one end of the cable; alternatively of course the + and - connections to a speaker could be swapped).
What your second post indicates you've just done is to invert "absolute polarity," which as you realize changes the polarity of both speakers at once, keeping them in phase with each other. The audible significance of doing that is controversial, and is recording dependent IMO. To the extent that it may make any difference at all, it can be expected to make the most difference on recordings that have been engineered using "purist" techniques, meaning a minimal number of microphones (e.g., just 2 or 3), with minimal or no subsequent mixing, compression, processing, etc.
Beyond that, I have no particular thoughts about the phasiness you have described hearing.
Best regards,
-- Al