Hanging Out at Sun Studio, Where Rock and Roll Was Born (Video)

Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats recorded at Sun Studio in Memphis, TN. It's still there (after a spotty history, including resale and re-opening in the late '80s) -- and it's still analog. Mostly analog, at least; a Pro Tools system is there for people who don't want to pay for an all-analog production. Thousands of tourists (I met a family from Norway who'd come to visit Graceland and Sun) descend on the old building each year just to see the place, and others come to record in the legendary space and what has become a boutique recording studio. I got to chat for a while with Sun recording engineer Matt Ross-Spang about working with the studio's lovingly gathered and restored recording gear, some of it nearly three times as old as he is. (An unexpected bonus: hanging out for a few hours in the Sun control room is a good way to bump into Fluke Holland, former drummer for Carl Perkins and Johnny Cash, who stopped in just after we stopped shooting.) Be warned: there are some bursts of rock-and-roll to listen through.

Comments

Culture-product

[concealment]

When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product. That's all Elvis ever was: a cheap, safe way to make "black" music that white people liked.

Find a reputable indie band and stick with it. Listen to indie radio, if you can still find it.

Re:Culture-product

[Slalomsk8er]

jup I just got me a magnatune.com lifetime membership the other day for a virtually endless stream of indie music ;)

Re:Culture-product

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't a sin to like 'culture product', anymore than to like cotton candy, but with music, you can enjoy the taste all you want without incurring any of the harm... Fight the powah, pirating all their product for free.

Re:Culture-product

[gl4ss]

yeah so you turned into a pussy "I don't know what I like without checking how unpopular it is first" ahole? just listen to it, you should know if you like it or not from that. fuck the establishment and fuck the counter-establishment hipsters. that's a revolution.

you know what's really fucking indie? crack intro chiptunes, yo!

Re:Culture-product

[pszilard]

As soon as a band becomes really reputable it inherently looses its "indie" nature. Unless you have an (ehmm) modern view what constitutes as "indie" the your definition has nothing to do with "independent" anymore.

I'd say a really reputable "indie" band is just as much of a culture product targeted at the new hipsters generation (or whatever you call it) as Elvis was at his time.

Re:Culture-product

[mcgrew]

When I look back over rock 'n' roll, I'm embarrassed by how much of my life I spent liking what our society (read: big media) tells us is "culture." It's not culture, it's culture product.

Yes, for 90% of it. But just because the evil bastards at the RIAA labels bankrolled it doesn't mean it's worthless. I will agree that almost all "pop" music is crap, and I, too, prefer indie offerings. But before CD burners, cheap electronics, and the internet, nobody could record music well without a huge pile of cash.

TFS isn't entirely correct. Rock and Roll wasn't started at Sun Studios, it was a gradual merging of black music (the blues) and white music (country and pop). It didn't just spring into being with Elvis and Chuck Berry. The late '50s rock song "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" was a direct ripoff of John Lee Hooker's blues song Shake, Holler, and Run; same tune, most of the same words. George Thorogood's One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer was a cover of two Hooker tunes played together, House Rent Boogie and the song One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer (which Hooker covered from an earlier Blues guy).

Rock and Roll was born in Cleveland in 1952 (the same year I was born) when Alan Freed coined the term. From Wikipedia:

Albert James "Alan" Freed (December 15, 1921 â" January 20, 1965), also known as Moondog, was an American disc jockey.[1] He became internationally known for promoting the mix of blues, country and rhythm and blues music on the radio in the United States and Europe under the name of rock and roll. His career was destroyed by the payola scandal that hit the broadcasting industry in the early 1960s.

Re:Culture-product

[Anonymous Coward]

Ellis Cashmore, is that you!?

Re:Culture-product

[mcgrew]

An indie band is a band that's independant of the RIAA labels. Reel Big Fish was once a reputable indie band and made some really good CDs (I love the song "Maggie Mae"). Sadly, they sold out to Britney Spear's label. I only heard the first of their non-indies CDs, and it really sucked. The life was gone from the music. Under the label, the artistry was sucked out of it, the humanity was sucked out of it, it was bland, uninspired, formulaic.

As soon as a band becomes really reputable it inherently looses [sic?] its "indie" nature.

It only loses its indie nature when it signs an RIAA label contract and is no longer independant. Although it does loose its indie nature when it becomes popular, because it's freer to do what it wants.

Re:Culture-product

[Diss Champ]

"what's the point in not conforming
if it changes you"
- Five Iron Frenzy, "Marty"

I was listening to that this morning, and I think it is apropos.

Listen to what you like. Don't listen to what you don't like. Support the folks you listen to.

Re:Culture-product

[Anonymous Coward]

And the name "Moondog" came from a blind man who dressed like a cartoon Viking and busked on the streets of New York. Alan Freed had to stop using the name after Moondog sued him and won, supported by the testimony of Benny Goodman.

Re:Culture-product

[Anonymous Coward]

My playlist is 40% Rock (Of various types from Queen, to Iron Maiden, to Yes, Dragonforce and Dreamtheater), 20% new music (like Florence and the Machine, Mumford and Sons etc) and 40% 90s Video Game Music. Rock on Star Light Zone.

Re:Culture-product

[bws111]

It is widely considered that the first rock and roll song was "Delta 88", recorded by Ike Turner at Sun Studios, in 1951.

Re:Culture-product

[hondo77]

Elvis was indie when he started recording at Sun, dumbass.

Re:Culture-product

[DeBaas]

I think it was rocket 88...

Re:Culture-product

[bws111]

Gaa, you are of course correct.

Re:Culture-product

[intok]

It's also considered to be the earliest recorded uses of a distorted electric guitar. Legend goes that Willie Kizart was taking his gear out of the car and set the amp on the car, it fell off and punched a hole in the speaker cone, when they got inside they stuffed it with newspaper and the sound was born.

Re:Culture-product

[mcgrew]

I'll have to find the song, but how could it be rock and roll when the term had yet to be coined?

Re:Culture-product

[mcgrew]

Interesting story, but I've heard some old blues from the '40s with distorted guitars. Almost all of John Lee Hooker's songs sound like the amp is cranked up all the way.

Re:Culture-product

[bws111]

Alan Freed did not invent rock and roll, he named it. The songs already existed. It wasn't called a rock and roll song when it was recorded, but you can certainly look back and say 'that is the first song that sounds like what I call rock and roll'.

Re:Culture-product

[pszilard]

I wish I could agree with that, but I can't. I'm a bit lazy so I'll just use an article I read a looon-long time ago. What I think is pretty much summarized in the following two sentences:

"[The term] has also, for years, been sort of the de facto label for an entire subculture of idealistic artists and music fans who place a lot of stock in the idea of making music for yourself or your friends, rather than for profit or popularity,"

"indie is now nothing more than a branding tool: a highly commercial and money-driven movement, more concerned with marketing a particular image instead of culture with a truly independent nature and passion for its art."
(source: http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-19/entertainment/indie.overview).

Want examples? Just check out recent Ytube "indie" stars like Gotye. Ar they really making music for themselves and their friends? Not really...

Shitty bands.

[Anonymous Coward]

Find a reputable indie band and stick with it. Listen to indie radio, if you can still find it.

Reputable? You mean there are disreputable indie bands? So, like Pearl Jam or some band would rename themselves a pretend to be indie? Or do they all create a co-op of bands - like farmers do with their farms - and sell their music under their co-op and therefore are indie anymore?

I don't know. Everytime I've went to an indie band show, I was bored, the music sucked mostly, and the people there just looked at me like ... like the way they look at me when I go play tennis at the local country club for big shots - as a guest - pulling up in my beat up Chevy.

Of course, when these "indie" bands get good or are good they then get picked up major lables and become mainstream; which I guess makes them a sell-out or something.

So the only way for an indie band to be reputable is to suck.

Therefore Ladies and gentlemen! Keep indie music alive and only listen to shitty bands!

Re:Shitty bands.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, when these "indie" bands get good or are good they then get picked up major lables and become mainstream; which I guess makes them a sell-out or something.

So the only way for an indie band to be reputable is to suck.

Therefore Ladies and gentlemen! Keep indie music alive and only listen to shitty bands!

Plenty of bands have done this. A prime example is the flaming lips, probably one of the best bands out there on a "mainstream" label.

You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle Studio?

It's worth the trip

[abrotman]

I went to Memphis for Blues and the food, and decided to go over to Sun Studios (Stax Records is also in town and pretty interesting as well). They have a fair amount of memorabilia and they tell you a lot of interesting facts, though if you're a huge fan of that music, you probably already know those facts. If you're stuck in Memphis for 24hrs, it's not near Beale St, but it's close enough, and worth the effort.

Re:It's worth the trip

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I go to Memphis once or twice a year, dependent on my vacation time, and love Sun Studio. I've recorded a bit there (demo stuff, mostly to say that I did), and the folks that work there are pretty awesome. Last time I went there was a REALLY cute girl giving the tour, but she refuses to give out her phone number.

Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog is a luxury. Like most luxuries, it's not expensive because of quality. It's expensive because it's more laborious and cumbersome. It's like "hand-made", which is marketing-speak for "defects are to be expected and don't justify a warranty claim, despite the high price".

Re:Luxury

[Sarten-X]

Exactly right.

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality. On the recording side, saying something's digital is seen to imply that it's losing some extra part of the sound that can apparently only be captured in an analog system. This is a debate that's been raging on for all of digital audio's life, and it doesn't look like the madness will stop anytime soon.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

it all boils down to emulation versus actually happening. There are a lot of similarities between photography's own analog vs digital issues. such as taking pictures at night. the best digital technology still has problems. anything created by man with an instrument is can either be recorded and processed using vibrations, as it was created with, or you can sample it, 24 thousand times, or 44 thousand times, but it's still only a sampling, and what makes a track awesome could just be lost because in those samples it didn't capture the part of the vibration that makes that sound so cool. that's the analog vs digital dilemma. it's not just nostalgia, it's hoping your nerdy buddy over at the software company has a complete knowledge of how the universe works. which, last I checked, isn't exactly figured out yet.

Re:Luxury

[bws111]

What is wrong with that? The goal of the playback system is to accurately play the music, as it was recorded. Everything that happens up until the final product is produced is part of the sound of that product. There are very few cases where perfect reproduction of the sound of the instruments is desirable. If you are recording a symphony, are you going to do it in an anechoic chamber, or in a great concert hall? The hall is adding it's own sound to the recording, and the recording is better for it. Why is the decision to record at Sun Studios, with it's analog equipment, any different than the decision to record at Carnegie Hall? Both are adding something to the recording that otherwise wouldn't be there - it is part of the desired sound.

Re:Luxury

[edremy]

Analog is "better" quality in this case. In the case of recording music using amplified instruments, you don't want perfect sound reproduction. You want the distortion from the amps, you want the reverb from the space, you want the oddities of the tape. Those things are critical to create the proper sound.

If you want to discuss sound reproduction later, yes, analog is a stupid idea compared to (good enough) digital, but there's a reason why guitarists still use tube amps.

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who drink water and believe that it's medicine because it once was in contact with something that can cause their symptoms. "Infinite precision analog audio" is exactly as bogus as Homeopathy, and as much of a rip-off. Believe what you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously by educated people if you pay for either of those.

Re:Luxury

[BlueStrat]

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

What I find hilarious about people who look down their noses at "old analog systems" and only own digitally-recorded music and digital/solid-state playback equipment is that the majority of what is being recorded is analog to start with.

Take electric guitar amplifiers. The most-desired (and most-recorded) guitar amplifiers (and the flagship models of the largest current makers) are all analog vacuum-tube technology. Musical equipment makers have been trying to push solid-state equipment since the '70s and digital audio equipment since the '80s and it's fallen flat, with the exception of a handful of digital audio equipment (like some delay-based digital effects pedals) that reduced size/cost so much that the advantages outweighed the less-pleasant sound. Even then, those pieces of digital audio equipment are receiving input from, and are sending their output to, analog equipment (and much of it vacuum-tube based).

What many miss is that human ears and the brains that interpret what those ears hear are analog. Digital recordings are great if you want your computer to listen to music as opposed to human ears. Human ears generally find analog recordings, and the sound produced by vacuum tubes, to be a more pleasant listening experience than digital/solid-state.

Analog and vacuum tubes are not going anywhere. If anything, they're trending up, as there is a resurgence in vacuum tube manufacturing and analog recording.

Note: I'm an electronics technician and electric guitarist with ~40 years in both fields. I design & build vacuum tube guitar amplifiers and play semi-professionally (by choice), going on tour when the mood & opportunity strikes.

Strat

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

or you can sample it, 24 thousand times, or 44 thousand times, but it's still only a sampling, and what makes a track awesome could just be lost because in those samples it didn't capture the part of the vibration that makes that sound so cool.

Nyquist theorem. Check it out.

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand what you're saying, or don't know enough about digital audio vs analog audio to even put out what you want to say in the correct context.

Your first statement could even be true, as that's how vaccines are created. Homeopathic medicine can be extremely outrageous, but I find myself with less allergy symptoms by eating a spoonful of locally-made honey once a week during allergy season. I don't inject myself with parts of my body where ever an illness is however. Speak in context.

analog audio is not infinitely precise, you're using microphones so it will never be as precise, as will hearing something through one person's ears who are damaged more than another's. you're now comparing apples to oranges. you can clean up the tape and the heads on an analog machine, but the magnetic resonance is still the same as the vibration. you can record lower quality versions much easier by using lower sampling rates digitally, or higher. get past the pops and crackles, and a record made in the 70's, such as an ELO record, is an actual representation of those players, whereas a cd of the same thing is not the players, but what an algorithm has deemed to be similar to what the players would sound like. It's very very close, but it simply isn't the same. Newer material is recorded from the start in the digital realm, so a new record will never have the same feel as an older record that never had any DA/AD conversion. Now go take your SAT's again.

Re:Luxury

[doti]

Nope.

16bits is ok, but 44kHz is just not enough.
For even a 2kHz sound, you get only 22 "pixels" to "draw" the sound wave.
Result: high frequency sounds (treble) are poorly reproduced.
Some people notice it more than others.

Analog is superior in quality. At least compared to CD quality.
When there is enough resolution, digital will be better.

Just like with photography.
Just now the (state of the art) digital photography is getting enough resolution to surpass the digital film.

Re:Luxury

[subreality]

There's a good reason why guitars need tube amps, but what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic? If you need the tape compression sound you can always feed that track through a deck later.

Re:Luxury

[BlueStrat]

There's a good reason why guitars need tube amps, but what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic? If you need the tape compression sound you can always feed that track through a deck later.

Because during the A/D and then D/A processes, the harmonics generated in tube amp distortion and other natural analog effects and acoustic artifacts including the dynamic range are lost/altered. Once lost, there's no "putting it back in", as you suggest with your "feed that track through a deck later" portion of your comment.

Strat

Re:Luxury

[subreality]

Tube distortion isn't lost in a later A/D/A. The harmonics are quite well and alive. Bad A/D is its own problem, but studio quality A/D at high frequencies and bit depths will preserve it much better than tape will. Do you think that the Marshall sound suddenly reverts back to clean when people play it back from a CD?

The "feed it through a deck later" isn't about tube distortion. That's about the "tape compression" sound that drummers and some guitarists love. Why do you think you can't get it by feeding a good digital recording into a deck and then playing it back?

ANY kind of distortion can always be applied later if you have a clean recording, and 24/96 or 24/192 is a much cleaner recording than you'll ever get in the analog world.

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious. Keep'em coming.

Re:Luxury

[Jawnn]

Exactly right.

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality. On the recording side, saying something's digital is seen to imply that it's losing some extra part of the sound that can apparently only be captured in an analog system. This is a debate that's been raging on for all of digital audio's life, and it doesn't look like the madness will stop anytime soon.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia, but let's not force this analog nonsense on future generations under the guise of "better quality".

Yeah. Mp3 is far superior to any "old" analog technology. Right? [/sarcasm] The fact of the matter is that quality recordings can be made, and distributed, in digital format, but they are aren't (a very few exceptions noted). So yeah. That's why I own vinyl and a turntable.

Re:Luxury

[BlueStrat]

Tube distortion isn't lost in a later A/D/A. The harmonics are quite well and alive. Bad A/D is its own problem, but studio quality A/D at high frequencies and bit depths will preserve it much better than tape will. Do you think that the Marshall sound suddenly reverts back to clean when people play it back from a CD?

The "feed it through a deck later" isn't about tube distortion. That's about the "tape compression" sound that drummers and some guitarists love. Why do you think you can't get it by feeding a good digital recording into a deck and then playing it back?

ANY kind of distortion can always be applied later if you have a clean recording, and 24/96 or 24/192 is a much cleaner recording than you'll ever get in the analog world.

But they don't *sound* the same for all their digital accuracy. That's the problem with these discussions. It's all subjective and dependent on how individuals hear things.

I used to think much as you did. "What does it matter if the tape compression (or distortion) is added afterwards?"...but for some reason, it *does* matter and *does* make a difference. I've learned this through decades of experience and from some of the very best professional recording and production engineers in the business.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change what sounds best for them. Again, that's subjective. I'm just saying that other opinions are just as valid, and that it's up to the individual to choose for themselves what sounds best to them. It's like other things in music, like what is the "best" sounding guitar or pickup, or what is the "best" sounding loudspeaker. There is no absolute "right" answer.

Strat

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the point of staying analog after picking it up with the mic?

Is this a trick question? If you have a decent multitrack tape machine and can justify the cost of tape... why the fuck would you record digitally?

Re:Luxury

[mcgrew]

I find it amusing how there's a double standard for quality when it comes to A/V... In a home theater system, marketing a device as "all-digital" implies that it offers uncompromising quality.

Key words here I highlighted. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak." Marketing is aimed at the half of the population with two digit IQs. The fact is, analog and digital both have their strengths and weaknesses. Analog is higher fidelity than digital (especially when you're talking about high speed tape recorders/players, but it applies to LPs vs CDs too), especially with today's limited digital technologies.

LPs have a far better frequency response than CDs, and CDs suffer from aliasing in the upper frequencies, but CDs have a better dynamic range and no noise. In a low end system, the CD will beat the LP every time. Not so in a high end system. In an expensive setup, CDs sound like shit compared to LPs.

I can appreciate that an old audiophile wants things to sound exactly how he expects them, which means keeping his old analog system with all its defects, noise, and nostalgia

Wrong. The audiophile (I wish I could afford to be one) wants the flute in his recording to sound as much like a flute as possible, and he certainly doesn't want clicks, pops, or hisses.

If the bitrate were doubled and the sampling rate increased tenfold, digital would blow all analog away.

But for low end systems, like I said, your CD is going to be better than an LP. A cheap turntable is going to have rumble, caused by the motor's vibrations travelling to the stylus. A high end turntable's rumble is inaudible. The low end manufacturer is likely to counter this rumble by cutting down the low end, and its fidelity as well. Plus its tonearm is going to be heavier, introducing those pops you get from the needle hitting the record, and otherwise wearing out the LP. Also, the lowered bass response will likely make them compensate by cutting out some of the high end, as well. In either case, your speakers are going to be the biggest limiting factor, and they're also the most expensive part of the system. You're not going to get very good fidelity with two four inch squawkers and a "sub" woofer. With that setup, you're not going to get any better fidelity by increasing the sampling rate and size, because it's already at a higher fidelity than your cheap speakers can deliver.

Re:Luxury

[mcgrew]

You're absolutely correct, except for "you want the oddities of the tape". No, you do NOT want the oddities of the tape. You want it to sound as much like a live performance as possible, including the tube amp's clipping distortion and the hall's acoustics.

The anechoic chamber is for listening in, not recording in.

Re:Luxury

[doti]

I meant, "to surpass the analog film".

duh

Re:Luxury

[mcgrew]

Note: I'm an electronics technician and electric guitarist with ~40 years in both fields.

Then you understand and should have added that the reason guitarists want tube amps is because of the clipping distortion. If you look at an overdriven tube amp's output on an oscilloscope, the sine wave is distorted into a square wave with rounded corners, while an overdriven solid state amp's clipping distortion clips the signal sharply, giving it a completely different sound.

A lot of guitarists (again, as you know but many here probably don't) will have a small tube amp cranked to 10, with a microphone directly in front of it feeding a solid state, non-overdriven amp. It doesn't sound quite as good but it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to transport than a single huge tube amp.

The reason analog sounds better than digital is digital's alias distortion. A 15 kHz tone has only three samples at a 44k sample rate, and there's no way to discern the difference between the number of different waveforms with only three samples per crest. If they doubled the bit rate and increased the sampling rate by a factor of 10x, I'm pretty sure digital would blow analog away when it came to fidelity. A saxophone should sound like the saxiphonist wants it to sound, with no distortion that he doesn't deliberately introduce.

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference between the number of different waveforms with only three samples per crest

The math and the biology, learn it! There is no need to distinguish more than what these three samples can represent because what makes other waveforms different is too high in the frequency domain for you to hear. You don't have bat ears! A 20kHz sine represented by a 1 -1 1 -1 pattern sounds exactly like a 20kHz square wave, which is therefore rightfully represented by the same 1 -1 1 -1 pattern. The difference between these two analog signals exists, but it isn't audible, because your ears don't register wave forms. The "sensor" in your ear already physically splits the signal into different frequencies, and frequency components above 20kHz simply don't register. (BTW, unless you're still a teen, the cut off is actually much much lower than 20kHz and both signals sound exactly like silence). You can increase the sample rate all you want, it only allows you to record more inaudible stuff that doesn't change the perceptible audio at all. I swear, this is like talking to someone who believes in Homeopathy: The whole concept is bogus and you really want to open their eyes because they'll continue funding frauds, but they know "from experience" that it works and will not let go of their superstitions.

Re:Luxury

[subreality]

Flip it around: if you have a decent multitrack 24/192 ADC, why bother blowing money and effort on tape? The digital setup has dynamic range and response that the tape won't touch, and it's much more convenient to master.

Re:Luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

If the bitrate were doubled and the sampling rate increased tenfold, digital would blow all analog away.

No it would not. Digital recording can never be better than the analog source. 0dbfs represents clipping - the maximum voltage swing from the analog stage of the converter (ie: 24V rails). Suffice to say, an increase in bit depth beyond 20 bits is useless as it can only extend below the analog noise floor . I'll spare you my standard piece on the physical limitations of microphone transducers wrt frequency response.

Re:Luxury

[Jay L]

If nothing else, because the sounds you (the musician) hear on overdubs will affect the sounds you sing and play. Late binding and lazy evaluation is not always a feature in music production.

When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats...

When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you also don't want to read about any these other crusty old farts: Aristotle, Newton, Galileo, Watson, Crick, Shockley, Marconi, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart...

Get your head out of your ass, the world didn't start the day you were born.

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[Anonymous Coward]

geeks get old, it happens, doesn't mean they stopped liking computers OR moved out of mom's basement, but they do accumulate years

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those that don't learn from the past are foolish. Much good, and a lot of bad, we don't need to reinvent the wheel because we ignore the axle

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

OK, I'll bite.

No, I don't want to read about the status quo, get a basic history lesson or take a non-tech trip down memory lane when I'm reading Slashdot. The reason I starting reading this site was keep abreast of emerging tech and science trends, hear some new (and often kooky theories) or look back on dead branches of tech and learn why they're dead.

I understand that Pro Tools' PR team worked hard to get this story on SlashDot, but if your hook is "Elvis Presley," you've hit the wrong demographic, my friend.

Re:When did Slashdot become the AARP newsletter?

[mcgrew]

If you didn't want to read the story, why did you click the link?

Get your facts straight

[Rude Turnip]

Rock 'n Roll came here over 400 years ago in chains.

Re:Get your facts straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Evey Australian knows that Yahoo Serious invented Roll and Rock.

Re:Get your facts straight

[drooling-dog]

This thread is about when white people discovered R&R. We surely picked it up from somewhere, but all of that is lost in the foggy shroud of history...

The Wal-mart of music

[concealment]

People are hoping to inherit some cool from the music. It doesn't work that way. Buying music from large record labels is like shopping at Wal-mart or buying a Ford Escalade.

Re:The Wal-mart of music

[bws111]

The only people trying to be 'cool' are the idiots who decide what to listen to based on such important criteria as what label a band is (or is not) signed to, or how they obtained the music. Everyone else just listens to stuff they enjoy. Honestly, you indie-only people are every bit as pretentious as wine snobs, food snobs, and audiophiles.

I hate to break it to y'all...

[flameproof]

...but Muddy Waters invented 'lectricity.

Re:I hate to break it to y'all...

[mcgrew]

You're confusing Muddy Waters with the guy who invented his electric guitar, Les Paul.

Other old studio

[Sporkinum]

If you are ever out in the sticks of west Texas. Drive over to Clovis, NM and you can see the Norm Petty studio where Buddy Holly recorded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Petty

Ever heard of

[Pope]

Plato? Aristotle? Socrates?

Morons!

Not much to see

[Tapewolf]

It would have been nice to actually see some of the kit, other than the A80 (which is nice, but not particularly rare or unusual). Even after looking at their website I haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive equipment list, which is odd for a working studio.

I'm going to take a wild guess that the Scully 280 is probably their multitrack, likely a late 1960s model in either 1" 8 track or 2" 16 track format, though I think there were also 1/2" 4-track versions, depending on how retro you want to go. The stereo 280 machines have an interesting reputation as a 'tape format converter' in that they can stretch a 1/4" master recording into something that would fit happily inside a cassette tape (this is not something you ever want to have happen).

The Ampex decks are probably the 350 series from the 1950s, which people seem to like to gut into preamplifiers.

Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

Title: Sub Studio: Where Rock and Roll Was Born
Description: Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, and other greats recorded at Sun Studio in Memphis, TN. It's still there and still analog. Timothy lord talked with sun recording engineer Matt Ross-Spang...

00:00 - <TITLE>
The SlashdotTV logo bar with "Sun Studio in Memphis, TN... where Rock and Roll was born" appears over a shot of a red "SUN STUDIO" neon sign in a window.

00:02 - <TITLE>
A shot of Timothy Lord with the Sun Studio building behind him appears.

00:02 - Timothy>
Studio engineer Matt Ross-Spang wasn't even born when most of Sun's most famous records were cut.
Nonetheless, he's thought a lot about what makes them sound the way they do.
He's gonna talk us through some of the tech.

00:11 - <TITLE>
Various shots of audio equipment appear; a Scully 280 reel to reel tape machine and a mixing panel.
(1), is played in the background.

00:18 - <TITLE>
The interviewee, Matt Ross-Spang, is shown sitting in Sun Studio control room, with the SlashdotTV logo bar reading "Studio Engineer Matt Ross-Spang"

00:18 - Matt>
Around 30's, 40's, is prolly, you know, when they start making decent recording stuff that you can still use besides, like, a wax recorder or something.
So I've got that.. a bunch of microphones are from the 40's and 50's.. 60's - I've got pretty much every decade down.
Of course Ampexes are from the 50's, those mono tape machines that I use, and the Scully is from the 50's and 60's.
The newest tape machine would be the Studer a80 ... -

00:43 - <TITLE>
The view zooms in on the tape machine discussed before zooming back out.

00:43 - Matt> ... - which is kind of like the Cadillac of tape machines - they made the best ones and they were the last makers of the best tape machines.

00:50 - <TITLE>
"Great Balls of Fire" by Jerry Lee Lewis is played in the background.

00:50 - Matt>
Really high quality tape machines.
You'll find them in all the major studios running tape.
Some people like 'm, some people don't - they're not.. as far as tape machine goes, they don't have that crazy tape characteristic as much as the Scully, because a Scully is a bunch of lead, and this one is like, you know, trying to make it as clean as possible.
But they sound, really cool.
So that's probably the most modern tape machine I have for sure.

01:20 - Matt>
And then you got the outboard gear.
That's the same thing, 50's ... -

01:23 - <TITLE>
The camera pans up slightly to show the gear being discussed before panning back down.

01:23 - Matt> ... - there's some stuff from, you know, few years ago, up there.
It's stuff that I like, really unique stuff.

01:28 - Timothy>
Does anything stick out from the older, from the 50's and 60's, that is, you know, outboard gear that you're really happy to use?

01;34 - Matt>
Well, I think, if you're talking about effects or outboard.. 50's, I mean, in the 50's they used - besides a real room - for reverb they used a plate in the 60's.
Plate reverb is something digital will never be able to emulate, ... -

01:49 - <TITLE>
"Blue Suede Shoes" by Carl Perkins is played in the background.

01:49 - Matt> ... - and tape echo.
They've got plenty of plugins that do tape echo, but you gotta hear the tape echo, you've gotta smell the tape to get tape echo, and it's.. especially for Sun, if I don't use tape echo then I need to f... get a new job. *laughs*

02:06 - Timothy>
Is your job pretty safe?
As an analog specializing engineer?

02:11 - Matt>
Yeah - I mean, you know, I do freelancing stuff.. other places, and I, you know, I'm not saying Pro Tools sucks.
I'm not saying I have to cut the tape and I can only use 50's gear.
I've gone to studios

Re:Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

SuN! SuN studio! aaaaaa! I curse thee, lameness filter!

Re:Transcript

[timothy]

A bit detail oriented? Holy Moley! You even went to the trouble to identify songs. This is ridiculous, in the best possible way.

timothy

Re:Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

It still bothers me that I can't identify the first one (not the very beginning intro bit - I've never heard that before)... but that other piece.. "one two, one two, one two".. brass sections.. I know it, but can I name it? Nope. Google search for the aforementioned just yields a bunch of rap and R&B, while audio identification services failed; too short of a sample, I guess.

I'll figure it out yet

Re:Transcript

[QuasiSteve]

Jailhouse Rock - Elvis Presley (film version)
bam!

I knew it sounded familiar, but going over Elvis tracks, the version I have does not include the 'intro' part and threw me off track. Go figure.

Speaking from Memphis

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understand. Elvis was electric!

I dusted ur wannabe experts @ SANS, Sarten-X

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39675207

Re:I dusted ur wannabe experts @ SANS, Sarten-X

[Sarten-X]

Woohoo! My very own apk stalker! I win at Slashdot now, right?

What a worthless piece of fluff...

[__aavqan3009]

Slashdot is slipping.

Compiler?

[Anonymous Coward]

(nt)

Oracle Studio

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Oracle buy Sun?

Whoosh!

[Anonymous Coward]

BlueStrat is obviously making a parody of "audiophiles" who tend to believe these sorts of things. No one in real life could be that stupid.

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away

[Sarten-X]

I'll take that as a "yes, you win, Sarten-X! Good job!"

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away

[Anonymous Coward]

Postin ac (don't want Sarten-X trollin me). U FAILED badly http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39677201

Re:U trolled him 1st & he blew u away

[Sarten-X]

Is that you, AlecStaar?

Million dollar quartet setting

[Yoik]

The studio was the setting for the Broadway play "Million dollar quartet" which offered a nice re-imagining of what it was like there, as well as some classic music.

Box in upper left half of screen...

[frank_adrian314159]

Who knows what the box in the upper left half of the screen during the last half of the video labeled "SKUNK APE" is? Is there some mike manufacturer who named a mike that? Is is a small amp head? Any ideas? It's a great name for some piece of audio kit, and I'd just like to know what it was.

Since U trolled me on hosts?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read this vs. what your buddies in the link where you trolled me messed up on (& they're "security pros"? LOL!). Please, see pdubs post here:

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

Then this was my response to his mostly erroneous b.s. there:

First of all - You've made VERY FUNDAMENTAL "rookie" mistake's here on hosts files above! I welcome ANYONE to dispute these points on benefits hosts files give the end user of them in:

1.) Diskcaching taking over for "in memory speed of access" for larger hosts files vs. the faulty DNS clientside cache service in Windows

2.) How hosts files can aid security via "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"

3.) How hosts files can lessen tracking & aid "anonymity" to an extent (DNS request logs)

4.) How hosts files can circumvent DNSBL's

5.) How hosts files aid speed

6.) Added reliability hosts files can give you vs. DOWNED dns servers

7.) Added security vs. DNS poisoned redirected DNS servers (a huge RECURRING problem the past few years done via port 51/53 iirc & "bum rushing" DNS servers set into recursive mode)

8.) The fact that HOSTS can do several things noted above for anonymity, & reliability AdBlock especially + even software firewalls cannot (see Questions # 1 - 3 below)

9.) LASTLY & POSSIBLY MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR EFFICIENCY VS. OTHER SOLUTIONS SUGGESTED HERE BY PDUBS:

The fact hosts files are merely a kernelmode/ring 0/rpl 0 FILTER for the IP stack (far faster operations than occurs in usermode/Ring 3/RPL 3 programs like AdBlock)... a fact of life in coding gentleman, & ONE YOU'D KNOW if you'd have programmed device drivers, vs usermode apps.

---

1st - Both gents pdubs & logicalscope above overlooked this:

The local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem caching the hosts file - Since, like any file that is referenced and subsequently re-referenced, it will get cached that way, even if one were to turn off their local DNS clientside cache in Windows!

There IS another method (in the registry dealing in TTL), but why use it with larger hosts files - it'd be redundant, wasteful, & illogical to do so, here's how/why:

First - The DNS clientside cache in Windows won't handle larger hosts files, and wastes CPU cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O as well since the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem can assume duties caching it IF NOT ELECTRIC POWER ALSO!

(Since programs of ANY KIND tax the CPU and demand processing power & "commit charge" RAM chips also for faster processing while cached)

"Nothing rides for free" gents - a fact of life, even in computing!

Thus, running the KNOWN faulty local DNS clientside cache in Windows would be "redundantly DUMB" with large hosts files... read on:

Windows DNS clientside cache service is built on a faulty design premise in a non-flexible structure & with large hosts files, it will "lag" you, so turn it off IF you use a larger hosts file... THIS is a fact, AND a KNOWN design flaw in Windows itself!

I reported it to Microsoft LONG ago, along with the fact they removed 0 as a valid "short form" of the faster/smaller 0.0.0.0 blocking address in Windows VISTA/7/Server 2008 on 12/09/2008's "MS PATCH TUESDAY" but, Windows 2000 (post SP2 iirc), XP, & Server 2003 CAN STILL USE IT! Dumb & odd - a mistake in efficiency, no questions asked!

blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true&PageIndex=3#comments

So - how can I support that?

BASIC CSC-101 coursework on file access & parsing data in said files!

(YES - Even hosts which is merely a line-by-line record entry based text file, nothing more):

Since 0 especially (the short form of 0.0.0.0 AND what they removed the ability to use) IS small

Re:Since U trolled me on hosts?

[Sarten-X]

Ah, APK... Your comments so often start out decent, then after the slightest bit of criticism, you end up making Gene Ray look sane...

U can't disprove that, can u?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ah, APK... Your comments so often start out decent, then after the slightest bit of criticism, you end up making Gene Ray look sane.." - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Friday April 13, @10:06PM (#39682151) Homepage

See subject-line, & obviously not - So you can quit trying to play the "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /.", because that's ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT OF TROLLS when they're on the ropes. By the way, on that note: Do you have a PhD in the psychiatric sciences, a license to practice said sciences professionally, as well as having performed a formal examination of myself to determine my alleged mental state according to you, Dr. Quack? OF COURSE NOT!

No, that further trolling b.s. of yours just doesn't stand up very well vs. this -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225

* If you're going to "troll me", & try use some "expert" (lol, NOT) like the words of that "pdubs" character here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

?

Be SURE what he wrote is 100% correct, because in light of what I put down vs. it here (and there)? What he wrote doesn't "stand up" very well...

As far as your 'criticism' crap?

Please: This was TROLLING/HARASSING on your part, and yes, you did it first -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 only to be "blown away" by facts I put out in rebuttal in the 1st link above

(I know it, the people @ that site you used know it, YOU know it... & anyone that read what I put out vs. it, KNOWS it... period!)

APK

P.S.=> It's not "criticism" if the points you use aren't solid. No, I am more convinced than ever that what's in your profile about being a "software engineer" for 16 yrs. isn't the truth on YOUR part (or you're not very good @ it) - either way, trying to play "innocent" on YOUR part isn't working, so give up on THAT, troll...

... apk

Quoting ur profile... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've been a software engineer/programmer for 16 years, and general nerd for as long as I can remember. I'll debate anything, so long as facts are actually valued. I regard rampant profanity as a brilliant mark of stupidity." Sarten-X FROM -> http://slashdot.org/~Sarten-X

For an "alleged" software engineer (for only 1 yr. less as a pro than myself)?

How come you aren't 'living up to the words in your profile' quoted above, & you WON'T debate & MORE IMPORTANTLY DISPROVE this from me -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39681225

Hmmm?

Especially after you opened up on hosts files trolling me using another security site:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243

Which YOU obviously thought your 'security pros' could disprove my points on hosts files, and I show in that link above, and yes, on their site, they clearly, cannot!

(Which they even stooped SO LOW as to delete once but now have left it alone)

There's doctors, AND DOCTORS. There's mechanics, AND MECHANICS... and yes, there's 'security pros' AND SECURITY PROS!

To quote Mr. John Nash when asked what the difference is between "best" & "MOST BEST" (keeping the case sensitivity the same as above)? His answer?? QUITE A LOT!

* You don't live up to your words, OR your "alleged software engineer status", but you do as a troll - because you trolled me, got thrashed, & RAN from my points which disprove your "security pros" link, bigtime!

(Perhaps because it's SOLID AS A STEEL & has what I quote from Mr. Spock below?? Absolutely!)

It certainly "silenced" the folks @ the link you tried trolling me on/with here -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file/13756#13756

Especially since you tried to "troll me on HOSTS files", which a zillion dolts here have tried & failed on - same results as yourself - mere trolling & effete adhominem attacks, but NO FACTS that disprove those I posted in that link above... every single time (of 100's).

APK

P.S.=> "Sensors show the object's hull is SOLID NEUTRONIUM - A single StarShip CANNOT COMBAT IT!" - Mr. Spock, from the StarTrek TOS episode "The Doomsday Machine" by Norman Spinrad... apk

"ULTIMATE BLOWOUT" of ur wannabe security gurus

[Anonymous Coward]

THE ORIGINAL REPLIES of both logicalscopy & pdubs, plus a general rebuttal of their points here http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13796/i-cant-post-corrections-to-an-erroneous-set-of-questions-answers-here :

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

1st set of ANSWERS THAT BLEW THEIR mere "techie/networker" ERRONEOUS LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OFF THE WALL EASILY:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't l

Re:"ULTIMATE BLOWOUT" of ur wannabe security gurus

[Sarten-X]

You haven't silenced anybody. Everyone's just ignoring you. I, for instance, just had a lovely weekend without encountering anybody with overinflated egos from their meager accomplishments.

I briefly considered an actual point-by-point illustration of how ludicrous the "hosts file as security" idea is for modern computers, then I clicked "read more", and remembered why I don't actually even read your posts anymore. Once you start copying every message you can think of, insulting anyone who disagrees with you, and quoting non-sequitur lines from movies, I lose all interest in a discussion based on merits, because I don't expect you to participate meaningfully.

I get it. You think you're an admin god, and everyone whose opinions differ must be stupid, and it is your duty as a deity to point out that they are inferior. When mods delete your post, it must be because they're intimidated, and certainly couldn't be that the offense in your comments outweighed any useful content. That's fine. You're certainly entitled to your own opinions of yourself, regardless of whether I think they're crazy or not. Likewise, everyone else (myself included) is entitled to think that you're insane, if they so choose. I personally respect your obvious knowledge of the deep workings of Windows and video drivers, but I find your comments too stunningly arrogant to actually read.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: If your next message is under 15em vertically on my display, and free from insults, I'll read it, in the hopes of having a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, I have no desire to speak with you again.

Pretentious? No, I just like quality.

[concealment]

False humility is what seems pretentious to me.

I just like quality music. Learning how to play an instrument really opened my eyes.

I don't disagree with you about the fact that some people are indie-pretentious. I don't know how to identify it, but as the saying goes, "I know it when I see it." I guess to me, if the band they like isn't much different from the stuff on FM radio, I'm going to think they're just being pretentious.

I hope to never be one of those people.

As far as music goes however, I think I'm more geared toward Harold Budd or Dead Can Dance than Feist or Wolfmother.

When they manage to disprove my points?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you've got a point. Until then? LMAO @ U (and yes, they) - On diskcaching alone I "knocked their legs right out from under them", first shot (knocked OUT, lol)...

APK

P.S.=> Better luck next time, & don't use rookie noobs that obviously don't have Comp. Sci. degrees or backgrounds - After all: They couldn't even identify how diskcaching works to offset linear reads from hosts files from diskbound-ness (or any files for that matter, because that's what they do - along with SuperFetch in Windows, but that's unique to Windows afaik), lol... & that's VERY bad! apk

Re:When they manage to disprove my points?

[Sarten-X]

You were doing so well, then said "rookie noobs". You have no knowledge of their qualifications other than "they don't agree with The Almighty APK", so you're launching ad hominem insults, which meets my criteria for not speaking with you again. Farewell, troll. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Re:When they manage to disprove my points?

[Anonymous Coward]

You trolled him first and call him a troll? Please http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243

Don't have to, I see the results

[Anonymous Coward]

"You were doing so well, then said "rookie noobs". You have no knowledge of their qualifications" - by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday April 16, @04:58PM (#39704093) Homepage

Same as w\ u: Disprove my points on the value of hosts files for added security, speed, reliability, and to a certain extent, anonymity (and I always do well):

"I run Windows with a pretty hefty c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts file obtained from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm. I update this file as regularly as I remember and layer it with appropriate add-ons in my modern web browser of choice, A/V, and firewall solutions. Basically, I realize that a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file is protection against KNOWN threats (and only those with names!), and very little help against unknown and emerging threats (or straight up IPs). I must admit that I have not checked to see if there are stats regarding the attack/infection rates of new threats vs. known threats though I would expect that old, known threats probably still outweigh new threats simply due to volume. QUESTION: Is there any added value from running with a large (generally static) blacklisting hosts file when used with modern consumer-grade anti-virus and firewall solutions? Is it a redundant layer? I admit that A/V is generally a black box to me, so I'm not sure what kinds of signatures their engines scan for, and whether hostnames are part of those signatures. Although this seems like a free extra security layer, there are "costs" with manually updating the file, and the fact that I turn off DNS caching to prevent the whole file from hanging the machine each time it reloads itself (which can be frequent). (I've migrated DNS caching to the router instead which doesn't help me when I use my laptop elsewhere.)" - by logicalscope FROM -> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/9795/any-additional-security-with-large-blacklisting-hosts-file

APK ANSWER:

1.) Layered security/defense in depth - which you use but "oddly" have a problem in using hosts files also, & they're easily obtained as you've shown, regularly updated by reputable sites which you "strangely omit" as a FACT from said sources (There are many reputable ones beyond them as well) as well as easily edited by end users (text editors anyone? Easier than firewall rules tables or port filters & having to know things like IANA port lists etc./et al)

* Plus automating updates of hosts files? Cake: Setting up a simple PERL or Python script/program can do it (many are online for free) as often as you like & "automagically" (I wrote my own system 32/64-bit in Delphi XE2 to do it here, and it protects the hosts file every 1/2 second, via write protect attributes, even beyond UAC protection in Windows VISTA/Server 2008/7! It's being hosted by hpHosts/malwarebytes, another member of the security community, per Mr. Steven Burn services@it-mate.co.uk (which he says is "excellent" by the way) is another freeware that can)

2.) Again - adblock weaknesses now especially (by default now, it does NOT block all ads) - hosts files have NO SUCH WEAKNESS and are easier to edit than Adblock rules (scripted vs. text record entries, easily understood and documented in hosts files themselves in Windows or Linux by default)

3.) Browsers can easily be hijacked via malicious script along with their addons (via "web bugs", server-side - IF you don't know that technique, look into it)

4.) Browser addons are LESS EFFICIENT running in Ring 3/usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode/Ring 0 (since hosts are merely a filter for the IP stack)

5.) Hosts files can do a few things your methods (adblock, firewalls, dns servers) can't like:

* A. Speed up access to your fav sites LOCALLY, especially vs. remote dns servers (speed of HDD = 7-10ms in modern disks, & MANY

Sarten-X's trying to hide this post

[Anonymous Coward]

W/ others under it that trash him 4 trolling me 1st-> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2779659&cid=39672243 & that I completely "shut him down", easily!

Now - For such an 'alleged software engineer that is willing to debate facts' as his profile here states -> http://slashdot.org/~Sarten-X (which in my professional opinion having held that title a few times for a decade++ is NOT the truth from him (or based on his results, or rather "lack thereof", here in this exchange)).

That, as well as the folks from a UK security site whose largely erroneous & false information as well regarding how hosts can aid a user for speed, security, reliability, and even better "anonymity" vs. tracking to an extent also!

(After all - All they had in response to my completely technically valid points on hosts vs. their erroneous ones was ad hominem attacks vs. myself, rather than disproving my points, or even deleting my posts there that actually were to HELP THEM no less)

They ended up in what I call "large FAIL states" on hosts files' benefits to end users -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2783135&cid=39696975 on 11++ grounds...

So... so much for "security gurus", eh?

* No, not all are that way, but that pack certainly showed they are... & I can tell you, point-blank from having dealt w/ more than a few directly over time? MOST are that way... weak, & where it REALLY counts - knowing what's really going on "under the skin" of things, & that only comes from coding (not just using tools others in coders create for them to use).

APK

P.S.=> So, I suppose, let this be a lesson to any other trolls that try "troll me", & especially w/ "security gurus" (wannabes with no actual CSC degrees obviously based on the above)...

So - As I did here?

I'll just "go over their limited heads" (what they're capable of understanding) & "knock 'em out" easily, + yes, with simple facts they obviously aren't aware of because of lacking actual real skills, & know-how (rather than merely being users of tools that programmers like myself create for them to USE) since MOST are just "script kiddies" that use tools other wrote for them to use, or, mere rote learning w/ NO REAL ABILITY TO THINK THINGS OUT because that only comes from actual CSC degree based training

If anyone doesn't like that, especially "security gurus" with "injured pride" out of "geek-angst", & especially when I was trying to help correct their blatant errors on hosts files?

Consider it may 'bother you', because it's TRUTH, like-it-or not - and that's WHY it 'bothers you' - and that you need some actual CSC degrees, not just "certs"

It's why guys like Dr. Mark Russinovich excels not only @ coding, but, also in security work - after all, the 2nd link I posted above illustrates my point, perfectly (even though I am not Dr. Mark R. of Microsoft)... apk