I have one for Andre Visser - fit these cables and you will never feel the need to try any others.
Teo Audio: Liquid Cable
Teo Audio: Liquid Cable
Andy, just to avoid confusion again 😀, when you say "if silver lets through more highs" you are talking about more detail in the highs, not higher amplitude, right?
I believe good silver cables place a higher demand on every component of a system because of this, thus silver cables might not be optimum for every system / application.
Well if they can do as claimed on their website, I would love to hear them, the real problem only start if I like them. 🙂
So.....you measure the frequency response of silver cable and its different from copper cable, is that the claim? Just curious what the physics of this is: do electrons travel down silver cable differently to electrons travelling down copper cable, and the difference is detectable at audio frequencies?
I failed, that was exactly the confusion that I wanted to avoid. 🙂
Frequency response measurements between silver and copper cable of the same dia would not show a difference.
The question might be: "Is there more to detail than just the high frequency response?"
E.G., phase, harmonics, level resolution, etc. I certainly don't know - but I don't think that FR would be the only place to look and listen.
I did a search for the applied for patent by Teo Audio and can find nothing. Where have they applied, in Shehnzen China where they are made?
I would be very suspicious of this cable. I read the data on the Web site and there is not really any information on why it might be better to use a liquid conductor. The descriptions they gave of conductor size etc. all still apply to a liquid bound in a structure that holds it such that it can be used as a cable.
There may be some difference in the way it responds if you could discover some rational for beliving a non crystaline structure might work better but they haven't even investgated this as far as I can see.
Or if it simply has a very low resistance, however from the limited description given I suspect it does not have that low a resistance. Gallium which seems to be one of the main components of its alloy has a resistivity of 270 ohm meters, if you compair this with silver ( which would be much cheaper ) it has a resistivity of 15.8 nano Ohm meters. I.e Silver is approx 10 orders of magnitude better at conducting electricity. This may be why it sounds different to other cables, rather than any real improvement, it may just be distributed resistance.
The most interesting possibility for a new cable is that gallium becomes a super conductor at relatively high temperatures and an alloy may be able to do it even higher however this would still mean cooling it to massively below freezing where it would no longer be a liquid and would be extreemly complicated to maintain. Its clearly not the mechanism they are using.
The description sounds like techno bable to me. It might sound fantastic in some systems, (especially if a bit of resistance tames the response) but my experience of cables is that thier performance is not proportional to thier cost. Some cheap cable sound great, some sound rubbish; some expensive cables sound great and some sound rubbish. They often sound different in different systems. I wish I knew what was going on, as the measurements all say that, apart from at real extreems of poor quality, they all measure the same in the audio range.
However with this cable I suspect that you could make real measurements of its performance and see it changing the response of the equipment as its resistance is probably so high. Since I have no data other than the little on thier web site this is supposition. But without much more information I wouldn't part with any money for these cables.
Andrew
I would be very suspicious of this cable. I read the data on the Web site and there is not really any information on why it might be better to use a liquid conductor. The descriptions they gave of conductor size etc. all still apply to a liquid bound in a structure that holds it such that it can be used as a cable.
There may be some difference in the way it responds if you could discover some rational for beliving a non crystaline structure might work better but they haven't even investgated this as far as I can see.
Or if it simply has a very low resistance, however from the limited description given I suspect it does not have that low a resistance. Gallium which seems to be one of the main components of its alloy has a resistivity of 270 ohm meters, if you compair this with silver ( which would be much cheaper ) it has a resistivity of 15.8 nano Ohm meters. I.e Silver is approx 10 orders of magnitude better at conducting electricity. This may be why it sounds different to other cables, rather than any real improvement, it may just be distributed resistance.
The most interesting possibility for a new cable is that gallium becomes a super conductor at relatively high temperatures and an alloy may be able to do it even higher however this would still mean cooling it to massively below freezing where it would no longer be a liquid and would be extreemly complicated to maintain. Its clearly not the mechanism they are using.
The description sounds like techno bable to me. It might sound fantastic in some systems, (especially if a bit of resistance tames the response) but my experience of cables is that thier performance is not proportional to thier cost. Some cheap cable sound great, some sound rubbish; some expensive cables sound great and some sound rubbish. They often sound different in different systems. I wish I knew what was going on, as the measurements all say that, apart from at real extreems of poor quality, they all measure the same in the audio range.
However with this cable I suspect that you could make real measurements of its performance and see it changing the response of the equipment as its resistance is probably so high. Since I have no data other than the little on thier web site this is supposition. But without much more information I wouldn't part with any money for these cables.
Andrew
Last edited:
I looked over the three "reviews" they gave links to. Two of them only mentioned them, and the third said nothing at all about the sound.
I think salt water in plastic tubing would be cheaper.
Available in various models: Sea, Iodine, Kosher, Smelling, Bath and Road.
looking at frequency response alone is like trying to understand an ocean by only looking at its surface.
dave
When I worked for Mille' Nestorovic back in the late 80's he obtained a set of liquid carrying speaker cables. They were made from hollow silver tubing and had these neat springs you could slide down them to allow you to bend the tube without fracturing it. No covering of any sort but some nice little pylons to support the tubes and keep them separated. The liquid was Mercury. His final verdict was that they were "nothing special". This being the kiss of death for him. When we changed back to the polypropylene coated four insulated multi strand copper wire with polypropylene sleeve there was a great deal more "information" contained within the notes we listened to and measured. Just simple FR and pulse FFT measurements showed very little difference between the two, but the bare silver / mercury sounded thin, fast and sharp to me.
It was about this time that I began to think that people have a "speed" of unfolding events that is most comfortable for them. Some form of cognitive sweet spot. I am now quite convinced that it is this range of comfort that is being pleased or displeased by most of our audio gear. Certainly the differences would be found in very small changes in rise time, but perhaps, also within the propagation speed of the electrical wave through local dielectrics and the resultant mismatch and subtle reflections caused by the speed mismatch between metal and dielectrics at cable termination.
Bud
It was about this time that I began to think that people have a "speed" of unfolding events that is most comfortable for them. Some form of cognitive sweet spot. I am now quite convinced that it is this range of comfort that is being pleased or displeased by most of our audio gear. Certainly the differences would be found in very small changes in rise time, but perhaps, also within the propagation speed of the electrical wave through local dielectrics and the resultant mismatch and subtle reflections caused by the speed mismatch between metal and dielectrics at cable termination.
Bud
Last edited:
Bud,
That is an interesting theory. Maybe there is a "sweet spot" in terms of "speed" as it relates to ones system. Interesting concept to say the least. I guess I am one of the "slower" people, as I prefer the sound off tubed circuits to SS. 😀
I wouldn't part with any money for any cable that I haven't listened to on my system. 🙂
I'm also not convinced but I have been surprised so many times in the past that I would rather not comment before I've listened to them.
Two cables, one copper, one silver. Same length, same diameter. Do a proper ABX test and see if they sound different. I doubt it, but the test will show it one way or the other.
There is always a "cognitive sweet spot" on everything and everyone.I prefer to call it........ taste
🙂
Curly,time might show that you are not so "slow" as you say,and this not because you prefer tubes 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.