|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.92.148.124
I recently reviewed the TEO Audio Liquid Pre and now own it. So, as a happy user I would encourage the community to read my review at Dagogo.com.
I have rapidly come to the tentative conclusion that the liquid conductor is holistically superior to TVC technology. I will continue to assess this conclusion going forward, but at this time I have the sense that the liquid cable is of a similar caliber as the ESS Sabre chips I wrote about years ago - a product which is capable of causing a sea change in manufacturing of audio equipment. I envisioned the ESS chips and accompanying architecture as the future of digital playback, and they have become so. I get the same sense with the liquid conductor technology. It's way too good to not move to the forefront.
I did not switch to a passive until I had a means of remotely controlling the volume, and that came along when I switched to file playback. Both have been wonderful moves, terrific steps in building better sounding rigs. I strongly encourage people who are at a junction, who are sitting on the fence in regards to file playback to push onward, and to procure a passive preamp for demo. I think you will be astonished at the level of improvement available to you. I suggest you do not make your audio experience all about tweaks, but rather focus on the signal path and get yourself some serious gains in performance. I don't recommend junk products or insipid improvements. File playback with passive preamp is the ticket to a new vista of digital listening. :)
A factor which must be taken into consideration is the output of the amp relative to the speaker's efficiency. I advise you discuss this with prospective amplification sellers. Since a passive does not add gain, you must have an amp/speaker pairing which the speaker can be easily driven by the amp to sufficient listening levels.
The Liquid Pre is reference quality fit for elite systems. TEO deserves a lot of eyeballs on this product, and I'm happy to direct yours there.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Follow Ups:
electrical conductivity that is roughly 20 times less than copper or silver and on par with lead and titanium.
Interesting that such a poorer conductor should perform better subjectively...
By the way, galinstan is commonly used as a mercury replacement in thermometers due primarily to its non-toxicity.
try it! you know you want to!
Not the company! Taras and Ken have been consummate professionals, courteous, responsive and thoroughly informative as I worked on the article.
But the use of such a "weird" device with such profoundly great sound, well, what can I say? People can measure and deconstruct the information given by the company, but when push comes to shove the thing sounds unbelievably great. And not by a small margin.
I recall a conversation years ago wherein I said something to the effect regarding a conductor, "I don't care if they used a coat hanger..." The point is, I really DO care what they are doing when making components, but when a sound is so thoroughly right, so dominating in quality, if someone says, "Yeah, but..." it's not going to route me otherwise. Just because there are objections does not change the fact that it performs so well.
So, it comes down to whom you believe; me or the naysayers. I'm ok with that.
This was the case years ago when I began to use the ESS Sabre chips in DACs before they caught on. People railed about how the upsampling would ruin the sound. My ears told me otherwise. I'm glad the others caught up. :) My ears are talking to me again, this time about the liquid cable. I'm definitely not the only one. There are other testimonies online about liquid cable tech.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
.., in that it is much less conductive than copper or silver. Some people like the sound of rhodium though.
I "upgraded" to rhodium plated RCA jacks when I modded a couple of my components and I can honestly say that neither of them sound any worse than before. Maybe, they sound even better now!
purpose is served by using a less conductive material for a conductor. The whole point is to conduct, I would think....
If some find it sounds good, I suppose that is enough reason...
try it! you know you want to!
Doug, could you please go into a bit of detail regarding your use of the word floored?
For example, what was it specifically that "knocked you to the ground" so-to-speak?
Have you experienced other products that "floored" you?
Also, what do you mean by, "I suggest you do not make your audio experience all about tweaks, but rather focus on the signal path and get yourself some serious gains in performance. I don't recommend junk products or insipid improvements."?
Are you implying that:
1) all "tweaks" are minor / insipid, and serious performance gains can only be attained by the innards of a component? If that's what you're saying, then what do you do to cleanse the noisy AC coming in from the street and entering your listening room and components?
2) others openly recommend junk products or insipid improvements?
a greater than usual surprise at the changes the Liquid Pre has made. I am used to what many would call significant to profound changes that gear make; I hear them all the time as I build so many systems. It's "all in a day's work," to have changes.
Some components shock, however, with how much improvement they bring. When considering a box with some liquid cables, resistors and a potentiometer, would you think it could so elevate your system that you consider it one of the greatest finds in over a decade of going to shows and putting rigs together? That's the impression I have of the Liquid Pre. I go into detail about the sonic characteristics of the preamp in my article, so I'd rather not go into it too much here. Suffice to say what my friend said, "It's mature, refined." When we hear a mature/refined system it is holistically superior in every respect or parameter that we consider valuable.
I have had other products which have deeply impressed me; there are a lot of great components and speakers out there. However, as a system builder I am not willing to allow my quality of sound to retrograde. I have far superior systems now to even a year or two ago - and the sound quality has risen, as would be expected. So, if I was floored by a preamp five years ago, you can bet that it's not going to touch the performance of the Liquid Pre. I don't know how other reviewers work, but for me, in order for a "flooring" to take place, it has to be the best I've ever heard in my room.
But also, it has to perceptually be as good or better than what I recall hearing from the best rigs at shows. It has to convince me I could set up the system at an event and walk away with a "Best of Show" endorsement.
I don't have to do this, I could simply take what comes, but I'm not interested in a fluctuating system, but one which moves steadily toward SOTA. Over time I have learned that since "SOTA" is a moving target, so must my systems, as well as the systems I review. I also have been bowled over by source, cables, speakers, etc. But, they are subjected to the same principle of increasing performance expectations, so that if a next "best" comes along it has to be undoubtedly superior to all prior. I do return to previous pieces to check my perceptions. This obviously is not lab coat science, but I try to keep things as consistent as possible, and the best way to do so is to verify the improvements via the system I own vs. review components which I have shorter term.
In regard to tweaks, I recall many years ago seeing posters decrying them, having what I considered to be a poor attitude about experimentation in setting up listening. I thought, "What jerks!" Well, time has changed things; I find I have little patience any longer for such things. Having tried about 1 to 2 dozen of the supposed wonder devices, I find them collectively in a word useless, a waste of money and time. That is not to say all of them do nothing; it's just that they all do nothing much. I'm not willing to invest my time and money in things that do little to improve systems. Tweaks have not yielded the impressive changes I get with components/cables/speakers - everything in the signal path. There are only two things which have met the criteria for my Law of Efficacy, treating CD's (but now I use file playback, so this is moot for me), and rolling discrete opamps. Tube rolling is obviously efficacious.
As regards others' involvement and motives in tweaks, I've given up trying to argue such things. People will do and sell what they want. There are a lot of smart people who love tweaks. But for me it's not about marginal improvements, but big gains. Others will obviously disagree with this assessment; so be it. I'm not interested in arguing it with anyone, it's the road I'm taking in audio. If someone vehemently disagrees they can find some tweak guru to follow as their source of inspiration. :)
Finally, regarding power, it's the same as with cables having passive electronics in them. I find power conditioning, regeneration, etc. devices to degrade the sound unacceptably. Again, having used several (but I'm always open to returning to test it again occasionally) I'm not willing to accept the degradation they have in terms of definition, microdynamics, etc. I have been able to get to where I want without such devices. Others will disagree, of course, but that's what makes the world go round. Over the years I have changed position on a few things, and am willing to do so again if a component shows up which forces a rethink. So far, it hasn't happened with power components. :)
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
I don't recall ever reading a review of yours.
But it seems with your superlatives used here that you are in danger of committing the very same offense you claim to have such an acute awareness of in so many others.
For example, you said, "By floored, I mean a greater than usual surprise at the changes the Liquid Pre has made."
If that is true, wouldn't the popular and perhaps overused phrase, "Exceeded my expectations" more accurately reflect your experience with the Liquid Pre?
as it leads to boring writing, and I do not wish to be a boring writer. However, neither do I wish to lose credibility in overstating a product's performance.
In the end the community, as the hear the Liquid Pre, will judge whether I have overstated the case.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
So you'd rather err on the side of hype than risk being lazy and boring? Don't you think we already have enough hype in this industry?I guess where I'm struggling with your potential hype here is previously you seem to have spoke as though you are familiar with every tweak and every tweak's tiny performance limitation, even to the point you won't bother with them in comparison to component upgrades.
Yet, you've admitted you've done nothing to treat the universally noisy AC coming in from the street that dramatically affects every last system, and therefore you're unfamiliar with the potential benefits of proper line conditioning.
It's good to hear that you have tried some line conditioners. But just because the one's you've tried were inferior, should not imply all line conditioners are inferior. That's like saying I tried several crappy preamps, therefore, all preamps are crappy.
Yes, most line conditioners induce their own sonic harm whereas finding proper or superior line conditioner is more like looking for a needle in a haystack. But they do exist and it seems a bit naive that you would choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You know, some of those who have extensive experience with proper line conditioning would say they couldn't tolorate listening to a system without proper line conditiong for more than 10 or 15 minutes due to ear fatigue. Even if that system contained the world's best preamp and cables.
In fact, if a component or cable is truly superior, it's a given that it is more revealing. Yet, a more revealing component does not discriminate between what it reveals more of. IOW, while revealing more music it's also revealing more distortions, (which you obviously have).
The fact that you do little or nothing to minimize the universal noisy AC coming in from the street and since you've not complained about any additional harshness or fatigue with the Liquid Pre installed in your untreated system, one could easily conclude we're not hearing accurate or objective feedback here about the Liquid Pre.
Or perhaps the Liquid Pre induces such a coloration that many of the pre-existing distortions (and quite possibly some of the music) are masked to lessen ear fatigue. Thus giving the appearance to the unaware it is "more musical".
Edits: 01/18/15 01/18/15
hype.
Look in the mirror.
As you seem quite intent on sifting through my comments for criticism, I don't see a great deal of gains from such jousting. For that reason I am done with this conversation. Blessings to you. :)
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Actually, Doug, your comments were raising red flags left and right starting with the title of your first post.
Your comments such as "knocked me to the floor", "sea change", "lightninng speed", and perhaps others do little to exhibit credibility. Not to mention some of your other worldly comments.
But more importantly, if you're unable or unwilling to take advantage of the fabulous benefits of proper line conditioning, not only are you potentially significantly compromising your product reviews, but also your own personal listening enjoyment and growth.
I'd recommend the fabulous Foundation Research line conditioners I've been using for years but that company went defunct several years ago. As I recall, over the past 15 years years, every reviewer who reviewed the Foundation Research line conditioners purchased the review samples. But there's still a few excellent line conditioners out there. For example, I recently auditioned several Jena Labs line conditioners and they seem to be every bit as good as the ones I use, if not a tad better.
You say this Liquid preamp floored you. Well, imagine experiencing similar performance gains to every one of your components simultaneously via superior line conditioning. I'd almost be afraid to read your superlatives.
But at least we and you would know that you're performing due diligence as a reviewer to maximize your system's level of musicality which can only add credibility to your comments and reviews and even the mazazine you represent. Not to mention the enhanced pleasure you'll get every time you sit down between your speakers.
Of course Mr. Stehno would *never* resort to hyperbole. Here's what he says about a $12,000 rack he created and offers for sale on his site. Very restrained :-)
I read your review DS and rather enjoyed it.
I enjoy going out on a limb, so to speak, in working with unusual and not well known products which I think have potential to be disruptive. I don't mind the bit of controversy that results, as it's a necessary part of exploration of components with new technology.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Hey Doug...
Once again, a good read...I am personally at the crossroads of file playback...I want that Ipad control of my music library...still have not found what I am looking for...One box ripper/server...with Jplay and DBpoweramp pre-loaded...I have just enough computer skills to be dangerous...this is work in progress for me...
I have limited experience with passive pre-amps...I did own the Adcom GFP-750, that had the passive option, but always preferred the active mode...My current Pre is a CJ CT-5 with the 6H30P tubes, which are not soft at all...I love the volume controls of the CJ pre's, separate channel volumes at .7 db increments, to compensate for sitting slightly off axis when I am sitting on the couch...
Now all that being said, from the 30000 ft view, you are using this pre as a filter of some sort...Correct??? Setting the volume on the unit and using a digital volume of the software??? Am I reading this right??? You are not using the volume on the Pre??? You mention playing with 3-different ways to control the volume...and blending those...
I do appreciate your pursuit of the "left of the dial" manufacturers and NEW technology platforms...(still difficult for us Average Joe audiophiles to hear this boutique gear)...Mav...
thanks again
Mark
Next time you are in the Twin Cities you can come over and tell me how much my rig sucks...where to go with it...I have very thick skin...and an open mind to try new things...always chasing that SQ...
I could not agree more Doug, which is why, I love cables and power cords.
This is my end of our hobby.
It is a product, works sensationally well, and measurably seems to be all things impedance-wise to all components.Did you measure the input & output impedance match with various other components?
I obviously have not heard the TEO Audio Liquid Pre but come on, liquid wiring? Is there liquid in a hose that makes up the wiring or is it solidified from a liquid?
If the liquid leaks I suppose you're at the mercy of the manufacturer to fix it as no one else would know the 'secret formula'. It's not a very good sign that your first sample had inputs that didn't work.
I don't think I'm willing to take a $4000 risk on a company that I've never heard of especially with such a strange design. Hmm.
Oh, I didn't see any comments on a remote control. I'm sure it's not an issue for some folks but a preamp w/o a remote is a non starter for me.
Edits: 01/17/15
for me to answer if I had the equipment to measure it, but I do not.
I do not know the nuances of how all car engines work, but I can tell if a car has good performance. Similarly, I'm reporting the fact that I do not know the technical answer to what makes the liquid conductor so good, but the performance is fairly obvious.
There are obvious concerns when a niche product has a problem, but the manufacturer responded in near lightning quick response, which is encouraging. The issue was not determined to be the liquid cable; that is an assumption on your part.
I would not have owned a preamp without remote either, until I began file playback, in which I use an iPad to control volume. I likely would not have given this preamp another glance if not for that previous change of source, so I am VERY thankful that I was open to explore this preamp.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
The same company has made liquid cables for years now. I would have no worry about leaking. I am more concerned it has 5 inputs and only one set of RCA outs.
Also only 24 volume positions and no remote. I'm spoiled w/ my 127 positions and remote on my Placette.
E
T
unlike the Music First Baby Reference which seems too highly dependent upon the amp and was not ideal to set volume, or the Cambridge Audio Azur 840E, which had to be opened up to near fully on with some amps, I had no issues whatsoever with the Liquid Pre as I used both the Wells Audio Innamorata at 200wpc and the Pass Labs X600.5 monos.
I do have the ability to contour the level with my iPad for file playback, so I do have "infinite" variability in level. The SQ is far beyond any Redbook playback I ever used, and I had $10K disc spinners in my room. I have won, succeeded in terms of convenience and SQ. :)
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
In response to your question about leakage, I have linked the MSDS sheet that explains the concerns/hazards, or absence thereof.
...every bit as good to others as it has been to you, my initial reaction to the cost of this passive is a huge put-off. Very good actives w/ orders of magnitude more parts (and good quality ones) cost this much or even much less. This always appears to be simply gouging in my eyes. Throwing in esoteric, hard to understand electronic theory is a nice way to justify the high pricing. Sorry to be so negative but just thot I'd add my initial reaction to this kind of product. Thanks, tho, for letting us know about the review.
regarding minimal number of parts, as well as indicate I'm not one given to fancy theory and pitiful results.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Based on the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet, required for handling/use/shipping HAZMAT) posted on the TEO Audio website, the liquid used in their cables seems to consist of a material such as Galinstan® that is a eutectic alloy composed of gallium, indium and stannum (latin for tin). Galinstan is a registered trademark of the German medical company Geratherm Medical AG, although there are other companies who offer similar alloys, which are non-toxic and have a very low melt temperature. The material properties make Galinstan a good substitute for mercury in thermometers, coolants and thermal grease.
The electrical conductivity of Galinstan is reported as 3.46x106 S/m (at 20 °C), which is somewhat less than lead and greater than titanium.
Makes me want to try some thick lead cables to hear how they sound.
The electrical conductivity of Galinstan is reported as 3.46x106 S/m (at 20 °C), which is somewhat less than lead and greater than titanium.
And is that about a full order of magnitude less conductive than silver, copper, gold, or aluminum?
Copper and silver are "about" 6x10 E7, Gold about 4x10 E7 and Aluminum 3.5x10 E7.
Iron, Nickel, Zinc and Tin are all higher too. I am no longer worried about using Cardas solder that contains lead, maybe that's why it sounds so good to me.
First, cost.....?
Second, did you compare it to a SOTA light based unit..if not, you should.
Will check out review.
but there have been delays due to no units in stock, redesign, etc. The manufacturer does not seem very excited to keep the review prospect alive as I have received no updates, even though a new model has appeared. I have at times had to work at keeping contact with manufacturers for up to a year in order to claim a review. The problem then becomes, is the product stale at that point. Once in a while, even after all that time and promises, they won't deliver. That's part of the behind the scenes happenings of reviewing; comes with the territory.
I was working on securing an LRD at the time Taras approached me, and if he hadn't you might be reading an article on an LRD.
I would still be interested in doing a review of the Tortuga, and if it would perform at a level as high or higher than the Liquid Pre I would say so.
Based on what the company says on the website about the sound of the LDR being as good as expensive active preamps, I would be cautious in simply saying it would exceed the Liquid Pre. To my ear the Liquid Pre is easily superior to the fine active preamps I have reviewed. But who can say without comparison?
Based on my experience with discrete opamp rolling it's not a given that products incorporating LED are magic bullets. There is going to be loss in conversion. The question in my mind is, would the benefit of clean transmission of light as conductor outweigh the loss in conversion two times? There is a price to be paid somewhere in the chain; no exceptions.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Hi Doug:
Understood. I can corroborate what you say about the Tortuga.
I know a reviewer who tried to secure a unit and the communication from the owner was zero after initial interest.
But following the development on audiocircle, it seems the LDR when through a total un utter complete overhaul..for the better. The idiosyncrasies of LDR required sophisticated software to keep it working correctly, and then there was a total chassis redesign. Then there were request for balanced connections. Then requests for remote capability and visual display. Then their were request for a kit version.
You can imagine how much effort it took to achieve these goals!
I must say the owner is highly intelligent and really made an effort to make it a ready for prime time product. But being a one man operation, I guess he prioritized R&D, and reviewers were put on the back burner.
I appreciate your time and effort in all your reviews.
I currently own a LDR based on the Tortuga board and I can tell you it is indeed something special.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
nt
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Updates on manufacturer's concerns always help understand the delays. It used to be upsetting to be put on "hold," but now I simply turn a different direction and sure enough, there's something else to occupy my interest.
Especially with smaller businesses, patience is a necessity.
Thanks for your interest and support.
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
Sure thing.
Check out the Tortuga website..you will be surprised at the evolution of the product. Also the Audio Circle thread is amazing in its chronological detail. Also to his credit, the price has not increased, which is remarkable.
But not to derail this thread, which was about the Teo Audio piece. Certainly, it is an interesting product, and I am a believer in passive devices. The price, at $4200 maybe a bit of a hurdle..but hearing is believing.
Not only cost , Is it a passive or active unit , number of inputs etc, i was'nt able to tell , too much smoke ..... :)
Well I knew it was a passive..but clearly price and a brief description would be nice and a link!
I don't think AA rules allow him to provide a link.
Thanks, I was not aware of that rule.
I think Doug is a good reviewer, and has sensible taste in gear.
nt
Thanks..I was referring to information that could have been noted in the OP..not the review.
nope
mea culpa. And it was going to be a "perfect" 2015...
The greatest impediment to advancing an audiophile system is the audiophile.
naw
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: