Beatles 2009 CDs - did any have inverted polarity besides the stereo Revolver?

Taxman, at least, has matching polarity on the 2009 and 2014 CDs (2009 is white, 2014 is red):

They appear to be different transfers, however, as the two do not stay in sync.

 

I read the whole thread and came to the conclusion that I really don't care about this "issue". Especially if it's true that the original UK LP had the same "issue".

 

Folks, there really is no such thing as absolute phase for a pop record. If there is it's almost for sure an accident.

Let's look at this a bit. I can assure you that in the studio hardly anybody I've ever seen work has paid much attention to absolute phase. Relative phase is a no brainer. If it is wrong everything will sound wonky. Absolute phase is totally different.

Suppose you listen to absolute phase on the kick drum and are sure you have it right. Now what happens when you listen to another instrument. It may not have the same polarity as the kick drum. Once again, relative phase is easy to hear, but absolute phase is much more difficult.

There is no standard that stipulates how to record sounds in the studio. Many microphones have inverted polarity from each other. Mic placement can also alter phase. Do people usually test the polarity of each microphone and alter them to fit a standard that hardly anybody will notice? Absolutely not, unless there is some correlation between microphones.

So if you claim to be able to hear absolute phase, how do you determine which way is correct. Do you go for the kick or do you pick another instrument. In either case, it is almost a certainty that if one sound is in one phase, another will be in a different phase.

Most will never notice the difference as long as the two sounds are not correlated. Most times they are not, unless you are recording simply with two microphones. In that case, absolute phase can be a factor that can be dealt with. For multi track pop recordings, most likely not a chance.

 

I would not disagree. I cannot claim to hear a difference when a track is inverted. Even if I could, would one really be demonstrably better?

My interest is purely academic. I find it curious that some releases are inverted compared to others. Is it a mistake, or is it intentional? Is there any technical advantage for this being done?

 

It's a crap shoot. My position is that little attention (if any) is paid to this in record production. At least that's how it was in my day. Of course we didn't have to worry about end users looking at graphs and dissecting our works.

 

Doug's posts are an excellent reality check.
I always thought absolute phase should make a huge difference. Woofers pushing air towards you with the first transient of a bass drum, rather than sucking. Should be easy to hear. I couldn't tell.
As Doug mentioned, there are many parts to a recording that may all be of different absolute polarity. Get one bit right and the rest is out of absolute polarity.
Secondly, amplifiers may phase invert or not according to how many amplification stages are present. Do you know if your amplifier and preamplifier reproduce absolute phase correctly or invert polarity?
Again, this means the same as changing BOTH right and left speaker terminals + and - terminals. When speakers have their relative polarity opposite each other (i.e. ONE channel has its + and - connection inverted), they are referred to as "out of phase". This is very different and entirely audible.

 

I'd take the mastering of the stereo portion over the 2009 sound more open to my ears and y'all know where the other three tracks are.

 

Jon Pertwee's Dr Who was always reversing the polarity in order to fix something. It became a long running joke in my family.

 

Doug, I can honestly hear a difference when I invert absolute polarity with some recordings that are multitracked. It also happened in my job, when I had to master a track for a client. I think it would be easier to hear on drums.

One of the more easily audible I have come accross is the SACD remaster for Peter Gabriel III (Melt). Listen to the first track on the remaster, invert the polarity, listen to the result. It is not a huge difference but it makes an actual improvement. Plus, the absolute polarity is now the same as the earlier CDs and the vinyl.
Best heard with speakers when on the sweet spot.

The difference on Revolver is more subtle.

 

I've burned a CDR with the 2009 Revolver tracks untouched, followed by the album again with reversed absolute polarity - the difference at best is subtle, and I'm not really sure if I'm really hearing a difference or perceiving/imagining a difference - saying that I know that when they reversed the polarity on XTC's Skylarking re-issue, that was a significant improvement, although mastering choices may also have played a part.

 

I would guess it was relative polarity that was out with Skylarking. I assume it was remixed for the new version as difference is far from subtle. LP cutting likely had a major effect on the original version.

 

It was supposedly reversed absolute polarity discovered by mastering engineer John Dent when he came to remaster it from what I read - although some folk think it was more down to Andy Partridge not being happy with the original version and looking for an excuse to blame Todd Rundgren for an alleged cock up in the original mastering chain.

 

Not remixed, the multitracks are still missing.

 

I'm not saying there is no difference or that I can't hear a difference. I'm saying that if the kick is in one polarity, there is no guarantee that the other instruments are in the same absolute polarity. Some things might be and some might not. So there can surely be a difference, but which way is right? If everything would adhere to a standard it can be easier to tell the difference.

 

I'm an outspoken critic also
As I much prefer the original Capital vinyl albums in the U.S.
They are fab/gear !