New TEO Audio ICs, who has them?

Taras22: So all GC-labeled offerings below the Kronon is a single liquid metal conductor IC; the Kronon is a two liquid metal conductor IC and everything above the Kronon is a three liquid metal conductor IC. And then one has the Double-Double series, which doubles the number of liquid metal conductors of the original IC, which I gather applies only to the GC-labeled series (GC-Jr, GC2 and GC-Ultra).


So the Kronon will be better than any of the GC series and the Double-Double versions of the GC series, owing to the connector being different.

Is that a fair characterization?

Well....first, the Kronon is a single conductor assembly....and as for the comparison between the Double Double cables and the Kronon ?....that is a tougher question to answer because we are really talking apples and oranges. Its sort of like saying a big block Mustang, which is loads of wild fun, is better than the precise handling Miata because it has a vastly better 0-60 time....or.... a Klipschorn is better than a planar speaker because it really kicks out the jams. 

The Kronon, while admittedly not as spectacular as our Double Doubles ( and gawd they are spectacular...as an aside methinks the special sauce in any double configuration is bandwidth extension which btw given our liquid metal conductor we were already at a very marked advantage in regard hard metal but in a double configuration , ooo-weee-baby,  the joint is really really rocking ), is still the more precise instrument. A more definitive and fair comparison will probably have to wait until we finally get around to figure out how to build a Double Double Kronon.

Sorry not a complete answer as this was done in some haste...dinner was calling and my blood sugar was dropping.

I find the whole Teo Audio product offering very confusing.  Although I applaud their efforts for constant product evolution, it does create market confusion and significantly devalues their prior efforts on the secondary market. 

Yes indeed our line-up has changed and we will continue to change that line-up in our quest to provide consumers with the best possible product for their budget.

We will not keep products in the line-up if better options are available and better options do keep popping up because are always pushing the envelop. We will also ( and this is a biggee ) will not keep products in the lineup if key components in that product have shown to have their performance deteriorate as production of that component moved to low labour, low quality locations. In fact this was the main reason behind the development of the GC series to replace our Splash series. It was also the reason behind the appearance of a Mk 2, then Mk 3 versions of some of our earlier models. The problem in both cases was a key component turned awful as production was moved by manufacturers to maximize profits.

We decided to keep "running to daylight" and revamped our lineup to keep building around good sounding materials.

And yes we realize this causes some distress in the used market but we can’t control the manufacture of many of the components of our cables and we are not going to stop innovating ( because as much as anything that just doesn’t seem to be in either our personal DNA or that of our wee enterprise...read we started this to bring new ideas forward and we are going to keep heading down that road ).

Moving to accommodate market changes and innovation is a sort of a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. And frankly we would love to keep building those old models are they were simply great cables. The quality of those products was, and critically, is still high, and as mentioned we changed things (and names ) to as much as anything keep that quality high. So when you buy an older TEO cable you still get much the same voicing and much the same benefits that a liquid metal conductor brings to the cable. 

One of the things confronted when making these cables, is that they are not wire. They are room temperature fluid metal in hollow tubes. An intricate and carefully designed application of a wholly different technology to something that appears to look like and behave like 'wire'.

As such..they require design and build techniques that exist no where else in the world of audio or any other application of a given nominal 'transmission line'.

Our contention and that of the industry itself (long story), is that wire is inadequate for the transmission of complex signals like audio. Analog audio signals being what is likely the most complex signal ever sent down a run of copper or conductor.

I'm being careful in that statement as if one actually looks at what an analog electrical audio signal is, and compares it to all other known systems of electrical signal intelligence transference (nominally considered by most people in the field to be transmission lines of various types and lengths) (considering their lengths they are more a jumper than a transmission line)..where wire is inadequate as it cannot easily deal with high levels of complex intertwined +11 octave near infinite and non repeating harmonic structures that run from essentially DC to near low RF. 

A solid piece of wire pressed into such service as a intelligence carrier, will generate distortions between those complex harmonics and their transient functions... an those distortions are not subtle. What i mean, is distortions in those small complex signal intermixing and expression areas as micro and macro transients - as individual and mixed components.

This is important as the entire intelligence that humans hear via, are in those micro and macro transients. 

Any forms of distortion in this area, and the ear will hear it. The known and applied electrical and technical measurement criteria gives those signal aspects only minimal weighting.

This is the point where the mistake in measurement vs hearing takes place. The reason the two don't jibe with one another. the electrical engineering measurement criteria gives this area of the signal, only 10% and less 'importance' or 'weighting'. The ear, as a listening and interpretation device, is crammed wholly into that small area of the signal's expression. the engineering criteria is not singling out and dealing with what the ear is hearing. That is the core of the mistake.

Think of it as audio engineering's most long term enduring fundamental error.

My point is, that this is where the fluid metal utilized as well as can be -as a transmission line in an audio cable design and build manner- the metal alloy fluid excels in transferring such delicate small details of the signal in a very low harm and low distortion manner, as compared to any solid conductor material or design.

Since this an entirely new area of transmission line design and application, each case of a new cables design is literally a new scenario. The recipes are not well known and well traveled, as they are with wire.

It's all new. All untraveled lands of unknowns, to at least some degree in the build/design ..and importantly  - unknown in the mechanical physics of it. The raw aspects of the actual electron and atomic function of the fluid metal in an electrical flow sytem..these subjects areas barely have names and only posses minimal mathematics at this time. Almost wholly unexplored due to extreme complexity.

The physicists and the people who know the fundamentals of actual electron flow and function for such application..they 'get it', right away (when we talk about audio signals and this fluid metal). They are generally excited by this new technology. The average person who knows little to nothing about such things? Not so much. (not really understanding that there is a fundamentally new thing going on here)

For most...it is the hearing of it - where it makes a difference.