Teo XLR

Fiddler,
The potential problem here is that we are talking about a metal in the cable that is liquid at room temperature -- and that is also highly toxic. No other kind of cable that I am aware of poses this potential problem.

Glory and Essentialaudio,
The tone of your posts is duly noted. What is also noted is that you have not rebutted my points.

Fiddler,
If you read this thread carefully you will realize that I was referring to a concern voiced by Musicxyz concerning his children. Although this may seem extreme it is not beyond the realm of possibility that such an event could occur, IMO. Indeed, stranger things have indeed occurred with tragic consequences.

With all due respect, I feel you should put this matter in its very broadest context. We are talking about toxicity here. This product is, despite claims to the contrary, highly toxic.

Fiddler, according to your logic, everyone who prefers one component or cable is suspect. This calls the honesty of all such posters into question. Are the only acceptable posts those that express confusion and uncertainly? What a sad day this would be if this were so.

Fiddler, according to your logic anyone who holds a strong opinion should either not register to post on the forums or they should not express those opinions if they do register. Because, ipso facto, what they say will be suspect.

I mean, what kind of convoluted thinking do we have here? What is this, the Audiogon roving thought police or a forum for open discussion? If you don't like someone's opinion. OK -- no problem. But if you are going to become the thought police then you open yourself up for the same treatment.

Hey Glor, you writing the rule book here?

Glory,
With all due respect, if you would devote some time to doing careful research on Galinstan you will then show that you are capable of focusing on the issue at hand -- without the need to personalize your posts in an inappropriate manner including the use of demeaning language.

Indium constitutes 21.5% of Galinstan. Here is what the research on indium shows.

"All indium compounds should be regarded as highly toxic. Indium compounds damage the heart, kidney, and liver, and may be teratogenic [causing birth defects]".

With all due respect, I don't believe this shows that I have either shot myself in the foot or that I look foolish. On the contrary. It shows that I am focusing strictly on the facts.

Essentialaudio,
1. What does "liquid metal" mean when it refers to cables? I have heard this term before but I have never read a description of it? The only liquid metal I am familiar with is mercury.

2. Referring to the testing done by Musicxyz and his friends, you say "All it sounds like is an unsubstantiated assertion you keep repeating ad nauseum to add credibility to what you say." Does this mean you are calling Musicxyz a liar or are you asking him for more information about his testing?

3. The tone of your comments is rather harsh, if I may say so. What does Musicxyz's identity have to do with the content of his posts? Are his comments any less valid than those of Teo dealers such as you who have an obvious bias? If Musicxyz has a bias of some sort would he not have the perfect right to that bias? If his bias comes from testing hundreds of cables would that bias not have some basis in fact since he and one other poster who is part of his group have stated their findings on this thread?

Musicxyz,
You say "All this because I don’t like TEO cables the cable that you use, seriously?" Please note that Teo cables are not only the cables that Essential Audio uses. He has publicly stated on this thread that he is a Teo dealer. He has an obvious vested interest in making Teos cables look good and he has an obvious interest in discrediting anyone who makes Teos look bad. IMO.

Essentialaudio,
I see you mentioned earlier "It is a proprietary patent pending alloy of gallium, indium, and tin. Do a web search for the trade name Galinstan, which is somewhat similar but not the same."

Wikipedia says "Galinstan is a family of eutectic alloys mainly consisting of gallium, indium, and tin. These alloys are liquids at room temperature, typically freezing at −19 °C (−2 °F).[1] Due to the low toxicity and low reactivity of its component metals, it finds use as a replacement for many applications that previously employed toxic liquid mercury or reactive NaK (sodium-potassium alloy)."

On the basis of this description I would have to agree with Musicxyz that rupture of a cable with this liquid amalgam of metals could pose a serious hazard to humans and pets -- not necessarily as a result of metal vapor, as would be the case with mercury, but as a result of this liquid metal being handled or ingested -- especially by children.

I am afraid that Wikipedia is downplaying the danger of ingesting these metals by referring to them as "low toxicity". They are only "low toxicity" when inside a cable or another enclosure. I would not like to see a pet or a child come into contact with or ingest this liquid metal. Doing so could prove fatal. One cannot always depend on Wikipedia for accurate information. This is not the only instance of inaccuracy on Wikipedia, alas.

Thus, with all due respect, I do not believe your statement is accurate, that this liquid metal amalgam is "without environmental concerns". This claim of safety constitutes an unsubstantiated claim. I have not been able to find any proof to substantiate it. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Instead, they try to put the shoe on the other foot.

I am thoroughly confused about the counter-charges with Musicxzy. It appears to me that his identity has been called into question as well as his report of testing cables. IMO your comments are a smoke screen that divert attention from the content of his remarks regarding cables. The content of his remarks seems to have validity. IMO.

You say: "All it sounds like is an unsubstantiated assertion you keep repeating ad nauseum to add credibility to what you say." When you say "All it sounds like", with all due respect, I beg to differ. It sounds like you are trying to create an issue that will enable you to dismiss the content of his remarks completely. In fact, to me, it does not appear that Musicxyz is trying to do anything to "add credibility" to his remarks. It appears to me that his remarks stand on their own merit.

It sounds to me like Musicxyz is part of a group of serious audiophiles dedicated to finding the best possible cables over a period of many years. And, indeed, another participant in his audiophile group has added his voice to this thread to corroborate Musicxyz's statements. It appears to me this renders the issue you are trying to raise about his credibility moot.

In fact, by following this line in the discussion you may be bringing your own credibility into question. Putting Musicxyz up against the wall when he has stated a simple case, corroborated by another participant in his group, is ill-advised. IMO, your aggressive approach draws attention directly to you regarding your motives for creating a "line of fire". Is it true that no stories have been made up here? Actually, it appears that stories have indeed been made up.

You state: "And while you are correct saying I have an interest in Teo Audio as a dealer, they are by no means the only cables I sell and like very much." With all due respect, referring to other cables is irrelevant here. It is a digression. The fact remains that you have a vested interest in making Teo cables look good in this thread -- which puts you in the spotlight before anyone else in this thread. IMO.

Essentialaudio,
I have been doing some research. The liquid metal amalgam called Galinstan is indeed highly toxic. I will be glad to provide the details if requested. Musicxyz is right to be concerned. IMO.

Fiddler and Glory,
You might be interested in reading Tbg's post regarding his cables leaking. I believe this is precisely the risk that Musicxyz was referring to. Also, please note that the liquid that leaked from Tbg's cable is reported as non-toxic. Please note that the liquid metal inside Teo cables is highly toxic.

Please note that I do not know Musicxzy, I do not know his true identity and I have had no contact whatsoever with him other than indirectly through this thread.

I find it worthy to note the information on the Teo site under "Material Safety Data Sheet":

"To the best of our knowledge the chemical, physical and toxicological properties of gallium-indium-tin Eutectic blends have not been thoroughly investigated and reported." This statement does not imply that this "blend" is non-toxic. It merely states that it believes that it has not been "thoroughly investigated and reported". This is a rather circumspect statement, IMO.

After this statement, there are several cautionary notes about gallium -- without any mention at all about highly toxic indium. The issue of the known toxicity of indium is simply sidestepped.

Glory,
When referring to my statements regarding the toxicity of the constituents of Teo Cables you say "Read and study real hard before you make such claims."

The facts about indium, a major constituent of Teo cables, clearly show that indium is a toxic element as I noted in my earlier post in this thread.

My reference to Tbg's cables was posted to show that cables can indeed leak. This is a fact that was reported by him in an earlier post in this thread.

In my opinion there is nothing sensational at all about these facts. They are simply facts.

Ghostinmachine,
I doubt anyone would be so foolish as to take one of these cables apart. My concern is actually over possible long-term release of vapors. Since indium vapor has not been sufficiently tested but is recognized as being toxic this could become a future concern.

Please note that mercury vapor is highly toxic. A research dentist died in Canada years ago after experimenting with the manufacture of mercury amalgam fillings in his apartment in Vancouver, BC. The entire apartment building was condemned. It was quite a story.

That having been said, indium vapor is not as toxic as mercury vapor. But, on the other hand, not enough testing has been done to determine just how toxic indium vapor actually is and what, if any, health hazard long-term exposure to indium vapor might pose. There is just not enough evidence out there to allow us to make a definitive risk assessment. We do not know if the news will be good or bad.

It has been stated on this thread that the constituents of Teo cables are not toxic. This is clearly untrue. The following information is available in the Internet:

"All indium compounds should be regarded as highly toxic. Indium compounds damage the heart, kidney, and liver, and may be teratogenic [causing birth defects].

Insufficient data are available on the effect of this substance on human health, therefore utmost care must be taken."

Indium vapor is also considered highly toxic and possibly carcinogenic. Teo avoids mentioning the word indium. What is known is that this substance is highly toxic. What is not known are the potential risks. If my cables contained mercury I would not allow them in the house. Granted, indium is not mercury, but I think I am making my point.

I believe it is highly unlikely that an accident would occur with these or other similarly constituted cables. But cables can leak, as has been reported in this string -- so you never know. These days many people who have toxic substances in their kitchen are making choices to replace those products with non-toxic ones. And that goes for other areas of the house, as well.

It is up to each person to assess this for themselves and to make their own decisions. I believe it is in my best interest to make informed decisions rather than uniformed decisions. I understand people who are dismissive about these kinds of matters. But having suffered the consequences of metal toxicity in the past I always try to err on the side of safety. Pathology can take decades to show up. When it does the consequences can be extremely serious.

Taras22,
Thank you for your detailed and considerate posting. I would like to respond to a number of the comments that you have made, if I may.

1. Regarding the safety of Galinstan you state:
"... please keep in mind that this testing procedure has been either vetted or replicated by numerous medical jurisdictions around the world ..."

Kindly note the following information on the Lenntech site:
"Indium compounds are encountered rarely by most people. All indium compounds should be regarded as highly toxic. Indium compounds damage the heart, kidney, and liver, and may be teratogenic.

Insufficient data are available on the effect of this substance on human health, therefore utmost care must be taken."

2. You state:
"But the fact that the Geratherm thermometers [that contains Galinstan which in turn contains indium] are used [sic] the world-wide medical community would seem be to a testament to the notion that these are considered safe products and not potentially dangerous as Sabai implies.

You have just proven my point. Mercury thermometers were used for many decades before they were universally recognized as being highly dangerous. Acceptance of product by the medical community is no guarantee of safety. On the contrary. Many toxic substances have been endorsed by the medical community throughout history.

3. You state:
"Now what Sabai's argument seems to strongly imply is that Geratherm has used a known highly toxic material in a way that would have a very good chance of harming people with the use of their products."

Actually, I have not implied this anywhere in my comments. In fact, I believe the chances of an accident happening are not very high with Teo cables -- at the moment. Nevertheless, having personally suffered from metal toxicity in the past, I think that any accident arising from a cable leak or from fumes being inhaled could be tragic and thus the safety aspect of this product must be thoroughly considered.

4. You state:
"His argument also implies that the testing that this product was subject to, was seriously flawed".

Up till now, everything I have read, including the information on the Teo site, suggests that they don't know what the actual toxic risk is for Galinstan and that not enough testing has been done on this product:

From the Material Safety Data Sheet on Galinstan on the Teo site, under Section 6: Health Hazards:

"To the best of our knowledge the chemical, physical and toxicological properties of gallium-indium-tin Eutectic blends have not been thoroughly investigated and reported."

Teo themselves admit that they don't know enough about the toxic risks of this product that they are marketing.

5. You state:
"First, be aware that only certain indium alloys are indeed toxic and they become a problem only if they are delivered parentally".

Please note that an NCBI study has shown the following:
"However, it is necessary to handle it [indium] more cautiously than before, because the pulmonary toxicity of inhaled indium has been identified."

6. You ask:
"Would it be ok to send the parts of this thread that list your concerns about Galinstan, and the danger it poses to humanity, to Geratherm?"

I don't see any problem at all with doing this. In fact, I would be very interested in reading the response from Geratherm.

7. You state:
"... lives may well be hanging in the balance ..." With all due respect, I believe this statement is a bit dramatic. I don't believe we are facing this kind of imminent danger. But, with the passage of time, if these cables were shown to leak indium liquid or vapor with prolonged use, then there would, at that time, be a real health issue in many homes.

8. Regarding your reference to a reward for my efforts, this surprises me because it never entered my mind. I am comfortably retired and I do not seek, or need, any reward for bringing to light what I consider to be a potentially serious health concern. With the emphasis on ""potentially".

9. My opinion, based on all available evidence, is that we should be cautious when considering using liquid metal products that contain indium.

Tbg,
You state: "I think you have greatly exaggerated concerns about this metal [indium]."

With all due respect, when commenting on the toxicity of indium I have referred only to publicly available information that clearly indicates that indium is highly toxic even in the form of vapor. But I believe I am putting everything in its proper perspective when I state "I don't believe we are facing this kind of imminent danger. But, with the passage of time, if these cables were shown to leak indium liquid or vapor with prolonged use, then there would, at that time, be a real health issue in many homes."

Regarding exporting mercury to Latin America and South America, I believe you have helped prove an important point I am trying to make. It is traditional business practice that when companies in North America are forbidden by new regulations from using various products, those companies find a way to export them to countries that are unregulated.

We can see this in the export history of toxic pesticides, asbestos (96% of Canada's deadly asbestos production is now destined for overseas unregulated markets) and various mercury products. The fact that these various products are being used overseas is not an indication that there is no health danger associated with their use.

On the contrary, the dangers have been already recognized "at home" which is why they are found overseas and not "at home". Overseas marketing of toxic products is an indication that companies have been forced by regulation to develop a new marketing strategy when these products are recognized as dangerous "at home" and their use is restricted or prohibited.

You have also helped prove my point when you refer to lead-free solder. For decades it was not considered hazardous to use lead solder. But now that the health dangers of using lead are widely recognized and lead products are regulated, there are other marketing strategies that are being used by lead producers so that they can continue to sell their products. Lead solder is widely available overseas.

In the future, it may well come to pass that solder containing indium will also become regulated when the toxic danger of indium vapor is more widely recognized. It is not unusual that the process involved in recognizing industrial toxins and regulating them can take years and often decades. This is a slow process. In the interim, it does not mean that these products do not pose a danger. They do. It just means that the regulatory process takes a long time to evolve. At the root of this process is legal liability.

Ghostinmachine,
Here is more information on Galinstan from publicly available information on the Internet. It shows that Galinstan can be quite volatile and unstable:

"The fact that Galinstan is an aggressive metal which damages and dissolves many other metals is another obstacle in its uses. Spillage of this material can cause short-circuits."

If there were even a small leak for whatever reason this could cause a serious electrical problem in an audio system.

Tbg,
With all due respect, this is getting way off topic, but mercury vapor is not difficult to produce at all. Dr. Murray Vimy of the University of Calgary did the research on this.

With all due respect, it is premature to declare "There actually is little researcher concern about indium toxicity" because the facts show there is ample concern. What there is too little of at this point in time is real research. Which is why one should approach this subject with due caution. IMO.

Glory,
I have never heard Teo cables. I understand they are quite remarkable. But the question I have brought to the table does not relate to the quality of the sound. It relates to potential toxicity. There are many excellent cables available to audiophiles that do not present a potential toxicity problem because of one of their constituents.

Taras22,
The gentlemen "doth protest too much, methinks" -- from Hamlet by William Shakespeare.

1. The fact that you have gone to the trouble to write this very lengthy post shows that my statements have hit a real nerve. If they had not hit a sensitive nerve they would certainly not have merited the lengthy rebuttal that you have posted today. IMO.

2. You state you will not "engage ... in a point-by-point rebuttal ... for the sake of brevity ...". Whereupon you follow with one of the longest posts I have ever read on any Audiogon forum.

3. The fact that you have not gone to the trouble to compose a point-by-point rebuttal of the points that I have made tells me there are points I have made that you cannot rebut. Otherwise you would have done so. You have chosen to side step the points I have made.

4. The worker you refer to in the indium study died from inhaling indium. You have just made my point. Indium vapor, like mercury vapor, is highly toxic. Indium composes over 20% of Galinstan. I note you have not replied to a single point that I made in my earlier post regarding mercury and the marketing of toxic products. The fact that many toxic products are found in unregulated markets does not make them non-toxic.

5. You state: "I had, mistakenly it seems, thought that I had produced a fairly good argument to buttress our contention that TEO Audio products are safe."

You are correct that you mistakenly thought you produced a good argument. You did not produce a "good argument", IMO. I find your language very revealing. You avoid answering my points directly -- in favor of trying to produce "a fairly good argument" to "buttress [your] contention". Your contention remains just that -- merely a contention. IMO.

I am only interested in examining the facts. I am not engaging in polemics here. You contend your products are safe. In fact, they may not be safe over the long haul since they contain toxic elements that could possibly leak into the environment. And you have not proved otherwise. This is the crux of the matter and the focus of my observations.

6. You state: "But looking at the Sabai posts ... I realized that we were still not out of the woods." You are still not out of the woods, IMO. In your frantic search to get out of this quagmire you have sunk deeper into it. Regarding the content of my posts, your statements do not respond to my observations in a convincing manner. IMO.

7. I find the tone of some of your comments that try to personalize things most revealing.

You state "So, I guess the irony is that Sabai has more to fear from the computer that he typed his rants on than he ever would have from our products."

With all due respect, if you look at the tone of my posts there are very sober and focus strictly on the facts -- point by point. In no way can they be described as "rants". IMO.

8. You state: "The bad news is that Sabai has shown himself to be either well intentioned, but incompetent or someone with a rather toxic agenda. In this regard his recent postings have proved to be way less than flattering to both himself and the members of this forum, who at the very least deserve some semblance of honesty in postings."

Your reference to my competency and honesty are unfortunate. I do not know how any discerning reader can call into question the honest of my posts -- or my competency. The fact is you have no idea of my identity other than my ID here as Sabai. I believe that respect on both sides of the fence on Audiogon is the best way for everyone to proceed. Other than dealers, you do not know who you are talking to on these forums and you should therefore always default to the "respect mode" as a matter of course.

9. Your reference to flattery is an obvious attempt to draw attention away from the issues at hand with a non-issue. IMO your comments about honesty, competency and flattery do not reflect favorably on your professionalism. I believe your commercial agenda is driving your responses here. I believe this is the most obvious agenda on this thread.

Glory,
Please note, in his earlier post Taras22 stated that, for the sake of brevity, he was not going to take the time to rebut my points. He has followed through. As of this date he has not done so.

Fiddler,
With all due respect, the first part of your reply is a non sequitur regarding the second part of your reply. You are talking apples and oranges.

On the one hand you are referring to my over 50 years of audio experience which is irrelevant to a discussion of the points I am making. In my opinion, this is a diversion from staying on topic and remaining focused on my points -- which have yet to be rebutted.

On the other hand, you are referring to Taras22 who asked specifically for the points I was making and then refused to answer them when I replied to him quite specifically.

Furthermore, my refusal to tell my personal history -- I am not a dealer and do not owe this to the forum -- has absolutely nothing to do with Taras22 asking for my points then stating he will not respond after I offered them here. This is the issue at hand -- not my curriculum vitae. IMO.

With all due respect, the word hypocrisy is not appropriate here -- and the tone of your reply is also inappropriate. IMO.

Fiddler,
With all due respect, I will be glad to give you a break.

When Audiofeil or anyone else "calls me out" on anything I take Ted Denney's advice from Synergistic Research. I ignore that poster because their posts appear unnecessarily provocative and emotionally charged. They do not merit a response from me. I only reply in substance to respectful posts. At this stage in my life I feel under no obligation whatsoever to interact with anyone who does not show due respect.

With all due respect, the word hypocrisy might indeed apply to Taras22 who urgently requested that I make my points as fast as possible because of the nature of my remarks. He then ignored my points the sake of "brevity" -- whereupon I note that he submitted one of the longest posts I have ever read on Audiogon.

With all due respect and for the record, I could not give a hoot what anyone thinks.

Fiddler and Audiofeil,
I note the tone of your posts without needing to describe it in detail. Each reader can hear the tone as if they were listening to a reference recording on their own sound system. I believe everyone knows exactly what I am referring to here.

I believe that respect is due to each poster on Audiogon no matter how deeply one disagrees with another poster. Otherwise, threads can quickly deteriorate in a vicious circle of accusations, bullying and mockery. We have seen this happen too many times here. No poster who is respectful of others on the forums owes anything whatsoever to the forum or another poster if they are not addressed with due respect. IMO.

Tbg,
With all due respect, the topic is entitled "Teo XLR". Some posters may not like the turn that the topic took with my posts but all my comments were related to Teo cables so they cannot be considered off topic -- just off the track that was desired by some posters. As I stated earlier, I believe it is clear that the commercial agenda is playing very strongly here. Furthermore, I note that my points have yet to be answered -- let alone rebutted.

Klinerm,
You stated: "I'd also like to comment on the toxicity issue. I'm not an audio dealer, and have no dog in this “fight.” I'm a microvascular surgeon, I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and I think I'm capable of understanding, in general terms, the issues involved here."

With all due respect, you do not need to be a microvascular surgeon or to have a degree in chemistry to understand the issue here. You may be aware that mercury leaches from so-called silver amalgam fillings and is highly toxic. There is no evidence that has been presented to prove that toxic liquid indium does not leach from Teo cables.

You stated: "I personally would not consume Indium, or intentionally breathe it for long periods." I believe this goes without saying. But you may be unintentionally breathing indium "for long periods" if Teo cables are leaching indium vapor through the dialectric and sheath.

You stated: "While it is sometimes easy to prove a positive, such as something is dangerous, it may be impossible, from a practical standpoint, to ever prove that something is completely safe. It all comes down to a risk / benefit analysis. My feeling is that these cables sound so good that their sonic benefit outweighs any of the theoretical risks discussed here."

With all due respect, it is impossible to prove that indium -- a known toxin -- is "completely safe". In fact, it is impossible to prove that indium is safe to any degree. Indium is a highly toxic element. According to your risk/benefit analysis I would never consider a cable with mercury as a component because my risk/benefit analysis would come down firmly on the side of too-high-a-risk. I do not care how good cables sound. If there is a potential health risk they are not on my short list -- or my long list.

Indium is in the same class as mercury. They are both toxic liquid metals. Since there has been no evidence presented that indium does not leach from Teo cables I would be foolish to assume that there is no risk. Many of those who believed their dentists that mercury does not leach from fillings have paid a very heavy price for accepting this false claim as the truth.

You stated: "Many things are potentially "toxic"". I note that you put the word toxic in quotes. Indium is not "toxic". Indium is toxic. With all due respect, to try to minimize the potential harm for a know toxin that is incorporated into a commercial product serves no one well. IMO. One must always err on the side of safety -- until such time as proof emerges that caution is unwarranted. No such proof has yet been presented anywhere regarding indium and Teo Cables.

The only thing that has been presented for the safety of Teo cables are unproven claims. This is not good enough. False claims for the safety of many toxic products have been made in the past. Those who believed such claims often lived to regret it. The sad fact is that it often took decades for the truth to emerge. Too late for too many.

Hi Gloria,
Toxicity is not a phobia. Toxicology is my part of my profession. Teo cables are irresistible. So sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery.

Hi Gloria,
That was a typo. This should read "Toxicology is part of my profession."

Toxins are an unavoidable part of our lives. But, IMO, the wisest course of action is to choose the least toxic options when presented with a variety of choices. Toxicology and pathology go hand in hand. Pathology can take decades to manifest itself. The incremental accumulation of toxins can suddenly appear as pathology when yesterday no signs or symptoms of pathology were apparent.

Making wise lifestyle choices is critical in helping protect ourselves from the possibility of a pathological outcome. This means if we have the choice to smoke or not to smoke the wise choice is not to smoke. If we have the choice to drink moderately or heavily the wise choice is to drink moderately. If we have the choice to have non-toxic dental work or toxic dental work the wise choice is to choose non-toxic dental work. If we have the choice to purchase potentially toxic products or non-toxic ones the wise choice is to choose non-toxic ones.