Tape Project Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: MylesAstor on July 03, 2013, 06:54:28 AM

Title: Question :)
Post by: MylesAstor on July 03, 2013, 06:54:28 AM
When is a safety tape not a  "traditional safety" tape?
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: docb on July 03, 2013, 12:29:54 PM
Perhaps when the engineer is not wearing the traditional dress when he makes it? In general a safety is a copy of the master. Perhaps knowing who has coined this terminology might help shed some light on the subject.

The only thing I can think of is it might be a copy of a safety. Or it might be like our running masters in which each of the three masters we have is in fact a direct copy from the original master. In which case of course they aren't safeties in the traditional sense, they are all running masters of the same generation.

Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: High and Outside on July 03, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
Myles,

Not knowing the context of your question, let me just give a little info on the terms as I have seen them used. Traditionally, that is.

I was taught that a safety copy should be intercuttable with the master, so if the master was damaged it could be repaired by inserting a small section from the safety copy. This means, of course, that it's a flat copy, same speed, level and EQ curve as the master. Anything else--EQ copy, leveled copy, different curve for export, Dolby when the master wasn't, non-Dolby when the master was--would not qualify as a safety copy.
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: ironbut on July 03, 2013, 01:19:59 PM
Regarding tapes being sold;

Since the Tape Project has made tapes such a hot commodity, it seems like the terms "master tape" and "safety" (as seen on eBay) have gotten blurred.
Because of this, it's alway good to inquire with sellers what exactly the tape is.
Real safeties or masters should have good info on the box/reel or info sheet.

I've seen tapes being sold that are on new RMGI tape that are being sold as "safeties". Or tapes that were running masters for vinyl production being sold as "masters".
That's not to say that they couldn't be excellent sounding. And it might not be that the sellers are being intentionally misleading, it simply means that they're being misrepresented as masters and safeties.
And actually, the "real" master/safety could have issues such as sticky shed so having a copy could be more desirable than having the original except for the bragging rights.
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: MylesAstor on July 03, 2013, 01:36:51 PM
Perhaps when the engineer is not wearing the traditional dress when he makes it? In general a safety is a copy of the master. Perhaps knowing who has coined this terminology might help shed some light on the subject.

The only thing I can think of is it might be a copy of a safety. Or it might be like our running masters in which each of the three masters we have is in fact a direct copy from the original master. In which case of course they aren't safeties in the traditional sense, they are all running masters of the same generation.

That is the traditional definition of safety. But there's another variation that came up recently in the context of a LP reissue :) I don't think it'll be immediately obvious but once I unveil it, everyone will facepalm :)
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: MylesAstor on July 03, 2013, 01:37:46 PM
Myles,

Not knowing the context of your question, let me just give a little info on the terms as I have seen them used. Traditionally, that is.

I was taught that a safety copy should be intercuttable with the master, so if the master was damaged it could be repaired by inserting a small section from the safety copy. This means, of course, that it's a flat copy, same speed, level and EQ curve as the master. Anything else--EQ copy, leveled copy, different curve for export, Dolby when the master wasn't, non-Dolby when the master was--would not qualify as a safety copy.

Think Columbia 30th St. Studios :)
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: docb on July 03, 2013, 04:59:09 PM
Oh, you're talking about this -

http://www.downbeat.com/default.asp?sect=news&subsect=news_detail&nid=2148 (http://www.downbeat.com/default.asp?sect=news&subsect=news_detail&nid=2148)
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: MylesAstor on July 03, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
Yep! :) I think we often forget that back in the Golden Days that two decks were run in parallel (which kinda evolved into digital recording and tape backup).

But my question is be how does Wilder know the difference in sound isn't due to degradation caused by the playing of the tape (how many times was it used to create masters--or were the tapes even stored in the same place?) vs. the head alignment.
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: ironbut on July 03, 2013, 08:57:12 PM
Great article on some of my favorite subjects (tape, mastering and live recordings)!
I'd be interested in Paul's answer too, but I would think that alignment issues would result in phase related transient smearing while tape wear would be a frequency loss primarily in the highs.
If there were other issues with the tape like stretching or wrinkling, they would result in phase/timing issues too.
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: Listens2tubes on July 04, 2013, 07:48:52 AM
Like Steve I too feel this is a great read for all tapeheads. Thanks Dan. :-)
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: astrotoy on July 04, 2013, 01:30:08 PM
Also, when digital stereo was starting, there would often be an analogue tape running in parallel for safety purposes. I know that Decca did this in the late '70's to early 80's when they were first starting. I think this was the source of the analogue master of Keith Johnson's Exotic Dances that the TP did. Paul can confirm this.

Larry
Title: Re: Question :)
Post by: c1ferrari on July 05, 2013, 01:59:12 PM
Myles,

Not knowing the context of your question, let me just give a little info on the terms as I have seen them used. Traditionally, that is.

I was taught that a safety copy should be intercuttable with the master, so if the master was damaged it could be repaired by inserting a small section from the safety copy. This means, of course, that it's a flat copy, same speed, level and EQ curve as the master. Anything else--EQ copy, leveled copy, different curve for export, Dolby when the master wasn't, non-Dolby when the master was--would not qualify as a safety copy.

Paul,

Thanks for this lucid definition...most excellent :-)

Myles,

Thanks for initiating the thread!