Are cables really worth their high price because of their geometry?

Teo Audio avoided all the issues with geometry or lack of it, by going to a cable design that takes into account and utilizes a set of properties and base physics that is unique in the entire industry, and the entire world of all possible conductors -for that matter.

We created a new divide, a new separator or sorting.

On one side, is all possible cable geometries and types, and materials, companies, from Cardas to Belden, to whatever, you name it...all the many thousands of them, along with tens of thousands of design configurations and so on.......

..and then there is Teo Audio as the sole existing type, on the other.

To clarify...When it comes to dealing with the fundamental physics of conductivity, there is all cable on one side, all conductors are there ..everything you know of, all of it, no matter who or what materials, and then there is Teo Audio Liquid metal, as the singular ’other’.

Almost every single conceivable ’conductivity under high and complex signal delta’ problem you can imagine (which is what an audio signal is--it is the most brutally complex signal in the entire signal world, this audio signal thing--get educated about signal!), all banished in one fell swoop.

Go ahead, ask a physicist. Ask a multi degree transmission line specialist/PHD about this, if you think any of this is exaggerated. Ask them to tear down what I'm saying here. Good luck with that.

ALL cables have a "geometry" - it refers the manner in which the wires in a cable are situated with respect to each other inside the cable sleeve (if it has one). Some examples of geometry are...

Teo audio's audio cables don't have a geometry, per se.

They don't mechanistically and/or quantumly or atomically possess the ability to respond or integrate with signal -like wire does.

Everything involving a liquid metal and signal, as a living breathing pair, is different than that of wire and integration with signal.

That is why it (liquid metal) has it's own wholly different areas in fundamental physics, as compared to 'wire'. Areas in fundamental physics which are, at this point viewed as almost infinitely more complex than that of wire.

Areas that remain mathematically and theoretically unsolved. Proposed and tested and math developed for some of it, but not verified by experiment. Ie, still unbounded.