View Full Version : Source First
A recent clearout (8 car loads to the tip:eek:) has meant that I can access some of the stuff I have had in storage since I moved into my present house 12 years ago. No sign of my Nagoaka MP30 yet :( but I did come across some old hi-fi mags including about the last 5 issues of Hi-Fi Review and I know many of you loved that mag;)
Anyway, the DEC 1990 issue has their guide to building a system in a chart type format. You start with a Dual CS503-2, Rotel, creek, Ion or Arcam integrated and some speakers like Tannoy E11 or Goodmans M500 (we are going back a bit here, model wise, naturally, but these would have been priced around £100 in 1990).
What gets me is that they don't recommend improving the amp until you have got the source up to a Sondek LP12 (then you can get an Exposure X) and they don't recommend upping the speakers until you have the Lingo with Ekos and Troika! At that point you can splash out on some Epos ES14.
A further claim - 'A system fronted by a Sondek LP12 will outperform any system fromted by a Linn Axis even if you play the latter through £10,000 worth of amp and speakers'
Well I always thought the source first theory had some common sense merit but doesn't this all sound a little extreme 20 years on?
Thoughts, anyone?
I think the speaker (or more precisely the speaker/room interface) has the biggest impact on a system's sound. I always had my doubts about the 'source first' mantra. and these have been confirmed by experience.
Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 13:20
Joe, you mentioned the word sound. That being the case you are right, speaker/room interface does have the biggest impact. However, as much as speakers have the biggest impact on sound I'd downgrade them before my source component if I was short of readies. Why?
Because the integrity of the information on the disc is more fundamental to my listening enjoyment than the sound. A system making beautiful noise that gave me a muddled and indistinct prortrayal of the music would do my head in more than a loss of scale, audible bandwidth and headroom.
Well, I only ever listen to the sound, so the speakers win for me.
(Plus of course, the LP12 was never the last word in turntable design any more than Linn Kans were the best budget speakers in their price range).
I think the speaker (or more precisely the speaker/room interface) has the biggest impact on a system's sound. I always had my doubts about the 'source first' mantra. and these have been confirmed by experience.
I'm thinking that a with a small speaker (like the ES14 for example) room interaction is not going to have much of an effect on the sound unless the room is tiny or very square.
Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 15:38
Well, I only ever listen to the sound, so the speakers win for me.
I think it's true we listen differently to music but you come across as a listener who listens to the overall in-room impression and has music 'on' often in the background rather than being the intent listener who listens through a pair of speakers to the music as it was recorded.
(Plus of course, the LP12 was never the last word in turntable design any more than Linn Kans were the best budget speakers in their price range).
Indeed.
I think it's true we listen differently to music but you come across as a listener who listens to the overall in-room impression and has music 'on' often in the background rather than being the intent listener who listens through a pair of speakers to the music as it was recorded.
Well, if that's how I come across it's an inaccurate impression. The only time I have music 'on' in the background is when I'm cooking, and then it's via Caroline's Sony mini system which has no hifi pretensions. Otherwise I do sit down to listen to the music without distractions. I'm not sure I listen intently though; that'd probably give me a headache.
If you only listen to the sound then the speakers will probably make the most difference. However, if you decide that you would rather listen to the music, the musicians and the way they play and interact - then you will find that everything ahead of the speakers is more important than the speakers themselves - quality, not varying degrees of quantity.
If you only listen to the sound then the speakers will probably make the most difference.
But surely 'sound' is all you can hear?
The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 16:18
This all sounds a little judgemental - is it not conceivable that both ways of enjoying music are valid, and that it is possible that they're not mutually exclusive?
Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 16:41
They aren't mutually exclusive but it is a question of priorities.
Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 16:45
But surely 'sound' is all you can hear?
That's mind-numbingly obtuse!
The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 16:53
Rounding on someone & jumping to the conclusions you have jumped to, because they use the word 'sound' instead of 'music' is kind of un-neighbourly, though Steve, don't you think?
The HFR guide suggests that in a (single source vinyl LP) system costing total £4K you will still be using speakers costing £100
Does anyone here own a system that has had only 2.5% of the total cost devoted to speakers?
If you only listen to the sound then the speakers will probably make the most difference. However, if you decide that you would rather listen to the music, the musicians and the way they play and interact - then you will find that everything ahead of the speakers is more important than the speakers themselves - quality, not varying degrees of quantity.
Spot on, Mark! :)
Unfortunately, to their loss, some people will never 'get' what you describe...... It's a matter of differentiating between sound (in effect, mere 'noise') emitting from your speakers, and something which resembles music. The two are entirely different.
Extracting the information necessary from recordings to successfully achieve the latter will always require the use of the best source components, as that is where the music, as a recorded entity, is 'born'.
However the examples of 'source first' given in Martin's magazines are outdated and completely ridiculous.
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 17:08
I'd imagine most folks back then thought better of it, just as they probably do now. I thought it was rather specious at the time.
Steve Toy
22-07-2010, 17:32
The principles are timeless. The benchmarks are dated.
Chris, robust in my expression but not un-neighbourly in my sentiment. The ball was also played not the man , as it were.
As well as obtuse, Joe's last statement was the ultimate in reductionism on an internet audio discussion site.
The principles are timeless. The benchmarks are dated.
Chris, robust in my expression but not un-neighbourly in my sentiment. The ball was also played not the man , as it were.
As well as obtuse, Joe's last statement was the ultimate in reductionism on an internet audio discussion site.
Back of the net!
Spot on, Mark! :)
Unfortunately, to their loss, some people will never 'get' what you describe...... It's a matter of differentiating between sound (in effect, mere 'noise') emitting from your speakers, and something which resembles music. The two are entirely different.
The two are exactly the same; the sound emanating from your speakers is all you get to process via your ears and brain. Unless you get to experience music other than via your ears?
Techno Commander
22-07-2010, 19:47
Anyway, the DEC 1990 issue has their guide to building a system in a chart type format. You start with a Dual CS503-2, Rotel, creek, Ion or Arcam integrated and some speakers like Tannoy E11 or Goodmans M500 (we are going back a bit here, model wise, naturally, but these would have been priced around £100 in 1990).
What gets me is that they don't recommend improving the amp until you have got the source up to a Sondek LP12 (then you can get an Exposure X) and they don't recommend upping the speakers until you have the Lingo with Ekos and Troika! At that point you can splash out on some Epos ES14.
Thoughts, anyone?
Oh dear, I did it all wrong!:lol:
IIRC, back in 1990 I was using a Teac VRDS-10, Audiolab 8000C, a pair of modified Maplin 150W Mosfet power amps and a pair of Tannoy Cheviots.
So approx 2/3 rds of the budget on source and preamp and the rest on power amps and speakers.
Never did like Linn.:ner:
aquapiranha
22-07-2010, 19:55
Outdated concepts from a time when the selling techniques of one or two well known manufacturers was taken as gospel. Of course you need quality sources, but the ratio of expenditure recommended by the people who follow this old mantra is really quite bizarre. While it will always be a good idea to have a quality source, skimping on the components down the line will not mean you get a balanced system, all IMHO. :)
'Manufacturers of source components and amplifiers say speakers are least important part of audio chain' shock horror!
twelvebears
22-07-2010, 20:17
Interestingly I had this debate with a friend who is about to invest in a serious system for the first time.
I still think that investing well in the source makes great sense at the very budget end of the range because it's true that you can't get back lost (or rather unrecovered) musical info, and that bit of cash could be the difference between a mediocre and decent source.
However as soon as you step up the price chain I think the spread of investment becomes less important that matching a system to work well together and to suit your personal taste.
Also worth considering that that source first investment mantra definitely has more of an impact when you're talking about analogue components because of the impact and cost of the mechanical engineering involved.
For me they all important Its how it works together that really counts
In my system the speakers play quite a big role in the overall sound and I can remember a few years back having a pretty good source system and not being really happy with the music I was hearing.
I think these days its pretty hard to get the source wrong on the digital side (maybe just a case of maximizing) but a well set up TT makes a huge difference to the music that comes out of those speakers
The two are exactly the same; the sound emanating from your speakers is all you get to process via your ears and brain. Unless you get to experience music other than via your ears?
No, they're most definitely NOT the same, simply because you misunderstand what I mean. However, we'll leave it there, as I sense a pointless and circular argument ;)
Also worth considering that that source first investment mantra definitely has more of an impact when you're talking about analogue components because of the impact and cost of the mechanical engineering involved.
That's a very good and highly relevant point, Steve!
Marco.
No, they're most definitely NOT the same, simply because you misunderstand what I mean. However, we'll leave it there, as I sense a pointless and circular argument ;)
If you can hear music other than as sounds through your ears, I think medical science should be informed!
I can't be a*sed to read through but my experience is this - with a VINYL system, the quality of the source reproduction is paramount and the order of the turntable, followed by arm, followed by the cartridge works very well up to a good point although going to extremes is daft tbh. An LP based system is only as good as the source and beyond a top LP12, the record itself becomes the final arbitor IMO, as most "commercial" pressings are filtered and tinkered with.
With digital, I found one could take surprising liberties. Most CD players these days are well enough balanced and even a cheap NAD or similar will work with a top end system without sounding horrid, as a Dual 505 can into a precision system..
Just my thoughts, but the source first mantra is important to bear in mind I think.
“Does anyone here own a system that has had only 2.5% of the total cost devoted to speakers?”
I might be close , if you add up the cost of the Spectral electronics and my Clearaudio turntable
against my speakers Dynaudio 52
Dave DSJR has said exactly what I was going to say, in that the digital world (even more so with a PC and giant-killing DAC) you can get away with a lot less on your source, especially if the PC is already there being a PC) but with analogue the source is a lot more important. That said, the difference between my pair of budget Sony SS-85E stand-mounts (which were well regarded by some of the press in their day) are completely and utterly trounced by my AE's - I tried the experiment the other day, out of curiosity - and the difference in relative cost isn't huge in today's money, but the sound is. (Though of course speaker design has come on leaps and bounds in the 20 years since the Sony's were around I guess.)
The Grand Wazoo
22-07-2010, 22:09
The word I used to describe the argument that the original post refers to was 'specious'.
I just got some definitions of that word from the web:
plausible but false; "spurious inferences"
gilded: based on pretense; deceptively pleasing; "the gilded and perfumed but inwardly rotten nobility"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
speciousness - an appearance of truth that is false or deceptive; seeming plausibility; "the speciousness of his argument"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
But what seems most fitting is this one:
Seemingly well-reasoned or factual, but actually fallacious or insincere; strongly held but false; faith-based; Having an attractive appearance intended to generate a favorable response; deceptively attractive;
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/specious
“Does anyone here own a system that has had only 2.5% of the total cost devoted to speakers?”
I might be close , if you add up the cost of the Spectral electronics and my Clearaudio turntable
against my speakers Dynaudio 52
Mark
Your speakers are about say $800? So your amp(s) and TT/arm/cart were about $32000?
Martin,
yes, that would be about right,maybe a little more.
If you only listen to the sound then the speakers will probably make the most difference. However, if you decide that you would rather listen to the music, the musicians and the way they play and interact - then you will find that everything ahead of the speakers is more important than the speakers themselves - quality, not varying degrees of quantity.
And the reading for today is taken from the Book of Linn, Chapter 1, Verse1:
'In the beginning was the Source.
And Linn looked at the Source and saw that it was important
Linn then said "None that shall follow the Source shall be as important"'.
Come on - were we all subjected to this claptrap in the early '70s. And very successful it was (to Linn's coffers).
A music reproduction system is a concatenation of components; source, amplifier, speakers (oh! and cables). A chain is only as strong as its weakest link (or should that be linnk?). There is no point in having a super front-end displaying how a musician is playing a piece, if the amplifier and speakers are incapable of relaying that information.
None of this is to say that one should pay an equal amount for each link in the chain; but each link is equally important.
Regards
PS I regard the quibbling over the words 'music' and 'sound', a matter of semantics and is not serving the discussion well.
:stalks: >$32,000? :eek:
I've got a Boston hifi system that cost about that much, luckily it's wrapped in a big metal box with a wheel at each corner and takes me places no ordinary hifi can!
;)
I'd love to be able to spend that amount of money on a hifi, but short of 6 numbers, or a divorce, it ain't gonna happen!
Martin,
yes, that would be about right,maybe a little more.
Hi Mark
I'm sure your system sounds mint as it is but I'm guessing you must have tried out some more expensive speakers on loan or demo at some point? Or do you not feel the need?
My system is set up in my study which isn't big, so the Dynaudios are perfect at the moment ,
when I move I will get something bigger.
I like the Quad 2905s but there are many good speakers, it will be a difficult choice.
My system is set up in my study which isn't big, so the Dynaudios are perfect at the moment ,
when I move I will get something bigger.
I like the Quad 2905s but there are many good speakers, it will be a difficult choice.
So we are back to the 'speaker/room' interface - which is interesting:)
As a relevant aside the most musical system I think I have ever heard was a Sondek/A60/Wharfedale Diamond 4 playing down the length of a 36'x14' room. (Diamond 4 was a budget minature speaker cost new about $140 in the late 80s) This would be about 4% of the system cost on speakers. Don't misunderstand me, it was by no means the last word in bass depth or high frequency resolution etc etc. It just sounded absolutely fantastic with anything you played on it.
Steve Toy
23-07-2010, 00:40
Martin and Mark you really know what music is about. By a rough calculation basing my equipment on what it would cost new from a dealer my £1300 speakers are about 6% of the total.
A slight aside here on room affect. Earlier in the year I had a BBQ in my backyard, my nephew and I shifted my amp and speakers outside so basically they were in free space, the sound was so natural I had never heard them sound that way before. But I must say I am quite happy with the SQ indoors too. my speakers are about 33% of the original cost of my vinyl setup, but this figure is meaningless as I have no idea how to calculate the difference time and inflation between purchases. TT - 1986, amp & speakers 1996. amp was 1000 quid and speakers 1100, TT with arm and cart adding cost of recent rewire comes to 900.
Beobloke
23-07-2010, 09:00
As a couple of other posters have suggested already, I personally believe that the synergy of the whole system is the most important thing and that, once again, sweeping generalisations like "the source is most important" or "the loudspeakers are most important" do no-one any favours at all.
That said, though, I do believe the loudspeakers make the biggest difference (note, that is difference, not improvement!) mainly because of their interaction with the room, but they cannot reproduce anything that the source or amplification has not found in the first place, any more than a poor quality pair of transducers can hope to do full justice to the minute details offered up by a quality front end.
Even personal experiences bear both situations out. A friend of mine bought my monster Goodmans 880 High Impact Monitor loudspeakers a few years back and stuck them on the end of a £150 midi system - the results were surprisingly impressive! Equally though, whilst I rebuilt my Ferrograph loudspeakers earlier in the year, for a month or so my system consisted of Garrard 301/Alphason HR-100S/Ortofon Kontrapunkt b through Anatek MC1 and Naim Supernait playing into £5 worth of car boot sale Goodmans Maxim 2s sat on £130 worth of Atacama stands. The results were quite startlingly good!
Martin and Mark you really know what music is about. By a rough calculation basing my equipment on what it would cost new from a dealer my £1300 speakers are about 6% of the total.
I haven't got a scooby-doo how to calculate mine. The Lockwoods cost me about £3.5k in total, but probably perform like £15k 'commercial' speakers......
As my system is built heavily on SPPV, no single item has cost me more than £4k, which is the max I really like to spend on an individual component, but as everything (apart from the copper amp) is so heavily modified, again (like the Lockwoods) their commercial 'performance value', sonically, would be many times that.
As for the 'source first' argument, I understand where both Barry and Mark are coming from. I guess that I would always place slight emphasis on the quality of the source, and indeed this is borne out in my system, as my CDP and T/T are the two most expensive bits. But it is pretty balanced, as all the kit is around the £3-4k mark :)
Marco.
As documented in the yamaha NS10 thread I yesterday tried the £100 Studiospares SN10 on my main system (approx new cost £3K) and guess what? Surprisingly good results. There is some expectation bias to take into account, though, as we are not expecting great things with such experiments.
As regards the Sondek/A60/Diamond 4 system I mentioned earlier the first time I heard this the room was pretty dark and the speakers were about 15' away and I assumed they were a high end minature like the Acoustic Energy 1 (about a grand at the time) - you could have knocked me down with a feather when I took a closer look at them.
I haven't got a scooby-doo how to calculate mine. The Lockwoods cost me about £3.5k in total, but probably perform like £15k 'commercial' speakers......
Marco.
Given that new Canterburys are about £12K (I know, I have checked to see how badly I cannot afford some:)) you are not far off with that figure I think. This is were the 5% on speakers theory fails - when the cabs and drivers used are very expensive to engineer as per your Lockwoods. What did a bass driver in a Diamond 4 or Maxim 2 cost? - a fiver at most, I suspect.
It's funny how the extremists on both sides of the subjectivist/objectivist spectrum use exactly the same stick with which to beat dissenters: 'You're just not listening properly!'
Steve Toy
24-07-2010, 15:40
Joe, you're glibly twisting things (again.) The adverb properly was not used. It was differently. The way in which you listen to music will have a bearing on your priorities as well as any belief mechanism.
Speakers make the biggest difference because that's where the sound emerges from :doh:
However, do you listen to the sound coming from your speakers or to the music through your speakers?
Stratmangler
24-07-2010, 15:44
I like the way that Joe throws bait into the water and certain fish rise to it without fail;)
Steve Toy
24-07-2010, 15:49
Joe does indeed act as though he's bored and looking for mischief much of the time and very occasionally he contributes something constructive.
I admit to rising to the bait of the one claiming to have no agenda.
Of course I listen to the music, as evidenced by my posts to the 'what are you listening to now' thread.
This whole 'learning how to listen' bollocks started off with the Linn/Naim flat earth cabal, led by Chris Frankland. It was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now it's being peddled by Ashley James and his merry men.
I think you will find that Ashley is suggesting that you do NOT listen as such - but rather you should train your hearing to fit in with what his measurements tell him (not actually his measurements you understand, as he doesn't know how to measure his own collar size).
To be honest, including price in the equation confuses the matter no end. Some speakers are expensive and essentially crap (quite a few in fact) and the same goes for any other component. In addition, once one gets above a few thousand pounds the performance to cost relationship is very arbitrary. What I would say is that most of the 'mullet' systems I have heard have had big dynamic swing, lots of bass and big initial 'WOW' - however, they have also had poor, to very poor, microdynamic and not communicated the emotional content of the music well (IMHO). The whole thing is even more complex with digital where often everything is much of a muchness - but then I don't involve myself much with digital (if I can help it). In general terms, I would still strongly espouse the idea that the order of quality should rest primarily with the source leading to the speakers - certainly, amazingly transparent speakers on a poor (to average source) sounds crap.
I realise the above sounds like 'The book of Linn' but I am not a Linn fan in the traditional sense (the only Linn things I have ever owned are cartridges). However, I have heard a lot of hi-fi and been in (and out) of the business a long time and, with regard to the source, this is what I have found. Many hi-fi enthusiasts become fixated on particular areas of performance, stereo imagery, absolute detail, specific tracks on specific records etc. Sometimes they can't see (well hear) the wood for the trees - i.e. yes, very true musical tone, sounds just like a violin - but played from a very long way off, no dynamic at all; or, amazing detail, can also strip paint at 50 yards the sound is so hard and bright...great stereo but everybody sounds like they are playing in a different time; the speakers can rarely address any of these issues.
P.S. I don't like the use of peoples real names - I get confused as to who people are referring to.
P.S. I don't like the use of peoples real names - I get confused as to who people are referring to.
Surely the use of pseudonyms would be even more confusing?
'Mr A thinks that the source is the most important part of a system's sound, but Mr B thinks different'.
Not really - everyone has a different user name (no need to use Mr A and Mr B - we aren't remaking Reservoir Dogs); lots of people have the same Christian name though.
Sorry, yes you're right. I don't think along those lines because I don't have a 'screen name' that's different from my real name.
Stratmangler
25-07-2010, 08:45
That's what the quote box is for - it attributes a quote to someone's username.
People don't always use the quote facility.
Stratmangler
25-07-2010, 09:24
Fair comment.
In reality it's far less of an issue than you have made out - it's only when there's a hot potato being thrown around where confusion tends to arise, and that confusion would arise regardless because of the quantity and rapidity of posts.
I didn't think I had made it out to be that much of an issue - a short sentence at the bottom of an unrelated longer post - it is still my opinion though.
Am I the only person on the site not to have heard a Linn Sondek LP12 or a Naim amplifier.
umm..probably (the only person likely to admit to it anyway ;)).
nothing wrong with the truth.
I like my Rock.
Which era LP12, they sound rather different these days :lol:
Yes, very true; the LP12 of today with Radikal motor and Keel (or dare I say RubiKon) chassis, is a very different sounding deck than was once the case.
Don't worry Steve, I've probably never heard either of them too - not knowingly anyway.
theophile
31-07-2010, 10:35
Let's consider a system with an analogy:
The water coming-out of a tap.
The 'tap' in this case being the speakers.If there was contamination of the water,changing the tap would be senseless.Certainly,there would need to be proper weight given to the quality of pipelines,storage tanks etc,but if the contamination arose at the source,then no amount spent on the other component could restore the quality.
Let's forget water filtration here,it isn't applicable to the analogy.
Sure there can be contamination at any stage of the line,therefore all the stages should limit or minimise that,but the idea that the idea that the quality of the sound sound 'comes' from the speakers is ludicrous.
You show me a great sounding pair of speakers,and I'll show you a thousand ways to screw that up.The better the speakers the more that possibility applies.Frankland went too far with his philosophy,yet in some ways,his point is crucial.
Let's face it,it is possible to enjoy music via a clock radio.A 'satisfying' system can be as low-fi as one can imagine,because satisfaction is a purely individual response which need not take into account any objective standard.Hence,it is possible for someone to say(for example);"I have JM Lab Grand Utopias hooked-up to a Fisher-Price all plastic $2 turntable and a Tandy $10 amp,and I am deliriously happy."
Such is the nature of satisfaction.....
However,it can be demonstrated that when resolution of the software(source of the music for all intents and purposes in the home)is the goal,there is a definite flow-path for the signal which needs to be respected.
There is no doubt that every link in that chain of signal flow contributes to the end result,the listening experience,and that truly great systems have an even spread of ability right along the chain.However,if you want to determine which is the make or break component,listen to a system which has superb amplification,cables,speakers,room etc and toggle between a capable but not outstanding Source component and a spectacular one,and them amaze at despite the State Of The Art amps,cables,supports,speakers etc just what difference a superb source brings to the party.
I guarantee after that demonstration you not be lusting after those State Of The Art amps,cables or speakers,you will be trying to get one of those Source components or if you can't afford it you'll try to get the closest to it that you can afford.
Food for thought,gentlemen. :)
Snoopdog
31-07-2010, 12:50
A Scotsman once said "Rubbish in, rubbish out.";)
A Scotsman once said "Rubbish in, rubbish out.";)
...and a bloke from Salisbury once described an amplifier as tap...
:)
Steve Toy
31-07-2010, 15:27
There is no doubt that every link in that chain of signal flow contributes to the end result,the listening experience,and that truly great systems have an even spread of ability right along the chain.However,if you want to determine which is the make or break component,listen to a system which has superb amplification,cables,speakers,room etc and toggle between a capable but not outstanding Source component and a spectacular one,and them amaze at despite the State Of The Art amps,cables,supports,speakers etc just what difference a superb source brings to the party.
Now stick your top-notch source on a good support, hook a decent mains lead up to it fed by dedicated mains and connect it to the amp via a good interconnect with top-notch connectors...
theophile
31-07-2010, 15:36
Now stick your top-notch source on a good support, hook a decent mains lead up to it fed by dedicated mains and connect it to the amp via a good interconnect with top-notch connectors...
Um.Isn't all that already mentioned,in the quote of mine you referred to?
You'll be wanting some excellent music as well. May I suggest 'Giant Steps' by the Boo Radleys?
Steve Toy
31-07-2010, 15:42
Anything you like joe but don't forget something said by John Cage back in 1961 to the effect that owning the recording did not mean you had the music.
He was talking nonsense. 'Giant Steps' is sounding lovely just now.
theophile
31-07-2010, 15:47
You'll be wanting some excellent music as well. May I suggest 'Giant Steps' by the Boo Radleys?
I'd much prefer Giant Steps by John Coltrane.
Another excellent choice! There's also 'Giant Step' by Taj Mahal.
theophile
31-07-2010, 15:54
I'm listening to Spaniard by the Boo Radleys as I type this. :)
theophile
31-07-2010, 15:57
Watch Coltrane's Giant Steps unfold here,note by note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kotK9FNEYU
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.