New TEO Audio ICs, who has them?

Thanks Mr. Celander for jumping in the breach and mapping out the lower end of our line. From there the line extends to include the Solfeggio, the Ref J, and the Ne Plus Ultra which are all based on what we call a three conductor assembly and use a WBT plug ( all the other cables are based on a single conductor assembly, and with the exception of the Kronon, which uses a WBT plug, use a KLE plug ).

Ascribing qualitative value to each cable is difficult as everyone weights various sonic factors differently but to our ears the GC group of cable have a familial sound that becomes increasing better as you move from the Jr to the Ultra. The Kronon however takes takes the significant changes that exist within the GC family, and adds dramatic to the significant change. Its a really stellar cable, and my particular fave in the line. 

The 3 conductor cables take the Kronon strengths and add a robustness to the presentation ( the analogy I use is like going from a great 2-way speaker to a great 3-way...I happen to like 2-ways which is why I have a preference for the Kronon, Ken prefers the three wire assemblies ). The only other strength the three conductor assemblies have is they are better suited for longer runs beyond two meters.  

And btw there are also Double Double versions of the single wire assemblies available and they have the particular charm that defines that sort of design ( in addition to that special voicing that TEO design brings to the table ).

Hope that helps.

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.