Teo XLR

Good Morning Forum Members,



My name is Taras Kowalczyszyn, and I am a Senior Partner at TEO Audio, which among other things manufactures the Liquid Cable line of audio cables.



This thread was brought to my attention a short while ago and I was hoping to respond earlier but a few things prevented an immediate response. First, we attended the Salon Son et Image this last week, and as you can probably guess that involves a great deal of prep so I could not devote the necessary time to fully digest what was being said in this thread. Second, and probably more importantly I had more than a bit of trouble working my way thru the various twists and turns that map out the way this thread has progressed.



So to help me make sense of the thread ( and to help the readers of this post to understand the full import of my response ) I have pulled the various posts that I thought were especially relevant ( these posts not only name the players that my response refers to but also give a bit of background to the place they have had in the evolution of this thread ). Thus we have posts that have references to Musicxyz, Zu, Bob, HiDiamond, Worldwide Wholesales and TEO Audio.



Against this backgound I would like to state the following....



In all the time that TEO Audio has been in existence there has been only one instance in which someone has come to my home and bought cables. That one instance had Bob Neill visit us to sign a distribution agreement to sell TEO Audio to dealers in Canada ( it should perhaps be noted at this time that the agreement that was signed at that time was in very short order terminated by TEO Audio) During that visit Bob Neill, who is the owner of Worldwide Wholesales, bought only one (1) pair of cables. These cables were a set of our PDL series RCA terminated inter-connects, which at that point was our entry level cable ( at that point TEO Audio had three cables in our catalog, the PDL, the SPDL and the Standard...the Reference which seems to be referred to at times in this thread was still in development and was not yet completed...and certainly never heard by Bob Neill ).



It should also be noted at this present time that Bob Neill and/or Worldwide Wholesales is also the Canadian distributor of HiDiamond cables and Zu products ( please see links listed below )



http://www.zuaudio.com/#dealers.php



http://www.hidiamond.it/2/international_distributor_2115881.html



Hope this helps clear up some of the questions that have been raised in this thread. And thank you in advance for piling thru this rather long post.



Yours truly



Taras K....





02-22-12: Musicxyz
From what I now understand the same store that I purchased my Zu speakers from is now selling HD cables. I did mention to the owner several times during our conversations that I like HD cables and perhaps that is how he found out about the brand. I have spoken to him several times and he seems like a great guy, very easy to deal with. I think if you read my emails I clearly state there are lots of great cables but my cable of choice is HD. I never realized that mentioning 1 brand name would cause so much crap. Beside me and my buddies I really don't know anyone that uses HD.I also like JPS, does that mean I own that company? You guys really need to move on because I don't care what cable you use as long as your system gives you some emotional connection to the artist. If you don’t want to hear my opinion than stop asking.

03-16-12: Musicxyz
I never actually had a bad experience with the owner; I had a bad experience with the cable. I bought 2 cables that were supposed to be the exact same model and they sounded totally different. They did add weight and body in all sorts of negative ways. I prefer a cable that doesn’t add anything but instead disappears so I can listen to the artist and recording.
The first time you hear a cable that adds nothing you will know because all your recording will sound more emotional.





03-20-12: Musicxyz
I not really sure who you are but I know where and who I bought the TEO cables from. I meet the owner Ken who was driving a M5 and Taras. They meet me at Taras farm house just outside of Kingston Ontario. They were very nice and they were running homemade blue speakers to match their homemade Teo cables. The cables were represented as the best model they sold but in my opinion they were not very good. Again this is just an opinion but I am pretty sure I am allowed to have an opinion.

I am done so quit making up stories. When we are testing cables we always try to go directly to manufacturer to save money.



03-21-12: Musicxyz
I really don’t have time to play your game but you should stop making up stories. I drove just outside of Kingston Ontario and purchased 2 sets of interconnects off the 2 owners of the TEO cables; it is really that simple. I did purchase my Zu speakers from the Zu distributer in Canada and his name is Bob.
If you make up stories you should be ready to back your lies. All this because I don’t like TEO cables the cable that you use, seriously?





03-23-12: Hidiamond
Please be advised that I am one of the owners of HiDiamond Cables and we did sell musicxyz, Dave several sets of HiDiamond cables before we had a NA distributer. Musicxyz does not work for HiDiamond cables or for our NA distribution company Worldwide Wholesales located in Canada. We do however appreciate the positive feedback from musicxyz.

Do agree with Ghostinthemachine that there is a sort of toxic presence that kinda hangs over this thread. And we at TEO are quite familiar with it as we have encountered this presence several times before.

In one particular instance we found that it had encountered another such presence, and as if by magic this confluence was spotted together in a moon lit market place selling audio cables.

It was all very mysterious and we are still scratching our heads trying to figure out where that spark of genius originated (though we do have are our suspicions because everytime we bring up the subject an acrid smell permeates the air...and it definitely seems highly toxic)

Sabai seems to have been on a real mission here to deal with what he sees as the potential horrors associated with the use of Galinstan. It should be noted that the alloy that TEO Audio uses is not exactly the same as Galinstan and any direct comparisons between the alloys are at this point purely conjecture on the part of Sabai. It should also be noted that Galinstan is a trademarked product of a company called Geratherm (http://www.geratherm.com/en/) which uses Galinstan as a substitute for mercury in medical grade thermometers. 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. His argument also implies that the testing that this product was subject to, was seriously flawed (yet please keep in mind that this testing procedure has been either vetted or replicated by numerous medical jurisdictions around the world).

But the fact that the Geratherm thermometers are used 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.

Find below an exerpt from the Wikipedia entry on indium (and the scientific peer reviewed papers from which this entry has been drawn are listed below the Wikipedia indium entry) and please compare it with Sabai's assertions.

Precautions and health issues:

Pure indium in metal form is considered non-toxic by most sources. In the welding and semiconductor industries, where indium exposure is relatively high, there have been no reports of any toxic side-effects. Indium compounds, like aluminum compounds, complex with hydroxyls to form insoluble salts in basic conditions, and are thus not well-absorbed from food, giving them fairly low oral toxicty. Soluble indium(III) is toxic when delivered parenterally, however, causing damage primarily to the kidney (both inner and outer parts), but additionally to heart and liver, and may be teratogenic. Other indium compounds are toxic when administered outside the gastrointestinal tract: for example, anhydrous indium trichloride (InCl3) and indium phosphide (InP) are quite toxic when delivered into the lungs (the latter is a suspected carcinogen).(54)(

54^ Tanaka, A.; Hirata, M.; Omura, M., (2002). "Pulmonary toxicity of indium-tin oxide and indium phosphide after intratracheal instillations into the lung of hamsters". Journal of the Occupational Health 44 (2): 99–102. doi:10.1539/joh.44.99.

55^ Blazka, M. E.; Dixon, D., Haskins, E., Rosenthal, G. J. (1994). "Pulmonary toxicity to intratracheally administered indium trichloride in Fischer 344 rats". Fundamental Applied Toxicology 22 (2): 231–239. doi:10.1006/faat.1994.1027.

Now the entry above does indicate that damage to the human organism can occur when exposed to indium compounds and at first blush it seems to confirm what Sabai states in one of his posts....

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

But a closer look at the issue shows that the issue is not quite as cut and dry. First, be aware that only certain indium alloys are indeed toxic

and they become a problem only if they are delivered parentally (see below for the definition of that term). Second, be aware that indium (III) is the result of a reaction of induim with some very specific oxidizing agents, which are either not found in the human body or in very small amounts, if at all--because these particular oxidizing agents are toxins that can be fatal to humans by themselves. Third, and probably most germane to this discussion, TEO Audio products do not have indium (III ) in its products and nor do they contain indium trichlorate or indium phosphide.

And in case the term parenteral is not understood by all reading this post (and it is the principal way in which indium (III) can enter the human organism to pose a threat) I have included a definition of the term below.

intravenous (into a vein), e.g. many drugs, total parenteral nutrition intra-arterial (into an artery), e.g. vasodilator drugs in the treatment of vasospasm and thrombolytic drugs for treatment of embolismintraosseous infusion (into the bone marrow) is, in effect, an indirect intravenous access because the bone marrow drains directly into the venous system. This route is occasionally used for drugs and fluids in emergency medicine and pediatrics when intravenous access is difficult. intra-muscular intracerebral (into the brain parenchyma) intracerebroventricular (into cerebral ventricular system) subcutaneous (under the skin)

And this can be cross-referenced against the following statement from the Wikpedia indium entry.

Indium is not known to be used by any organism. In a similar way to aluminium salts, indium(III) ions can be toxic to the kidney when given by injection, but oral indium compounds do not have the chronic toxicity of salts of heavy metals, probably due to poor absorption in basic conditions. Radioactive indium-111 (in very small amounts on a chemical basis) is used in nuclear medicine tests, as a radiotracer to follow the movement of labeled proteins and white blood cells in the body.

And please take note of the following statement which defines the conditions required if perchance pure indium ( and not indium in an alloy ) were to somehow become the toxic indium (111).

Indium does not react with water, but it is oxidized by stronger oxidizing agents, such as halogens or oxalic acid, to give indium(III) compounds.

Please note, again, that the one substance, halogen, is not normally found in the human body and other, oxalic acid, is a toxin, that at concentrations required to produce indium(111), would in and of itself, in certain situations, be enough to kill a human host. So the ingestion of indium is not really a problem since it would not be absorbed into soft tissue or possibly be morphed to indium (111) in the body and become an issue that way.

So to summerize....the existing literature does not indicate that our alloy poses a danger to living beings. It does however cause an unsightly mess if spilled, but this mess can be easily cleaned up with simple soap and water. I apologize for the way this post meanders but there was much to cover. I also have to apologize about drawing exclusivelly from one source, Wikipedia, but I decided to go with that source since not only was it well written, but it was also well annotated with references to peer reviewed articles at important parts of the entry (unlike Sabai's, which is drawn from a scissors-and-paste site put up by a company that sells water treatment solutions and who very likely have a vested interest in painting as dark a picture of a problem as they can...and do note that their assertions are not annotated) so that by simply going to a well known and easily accessible site, forum members can acquaint themselves with the relevant periodical literature.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Now I do wish to thank Sabai for voicing his obviously heartfelt concerns. At the very least, it forced us to re-examine our position on this topic, which is never a bad thing to do. But before I go, I would like to ask Sabai a question. 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'm sure they would more than happy to engage you in a dialog about the issues you have brought up about their products. Because, if you are correct, you have given them a free heads-up about the legal danger they have placed their clients in ( and the real danger the patients under their care are in ) and I'm sure they would be more than happy to reward you in what they would consider an appropriate manner.

And do please respond to this request in a timely manner, because to do otherwise would hold up the ability of Geratherm to right what you believe to be a great wrong. So if I don't hear from you in very short order, I will take the initiative, and send off your concerns, because this really can't wait another moment, since lives may well be hanging in the balance.

Now, you may find their initial response a wee bit terse, you are after-all potentially destroying their core business, but I'm sure they will come around once you prove to them how right you are, so good luck with that.

Thanks all for your time.

To Mr. Audionewfie

In case you missed this part of a post that was up-thread here it is again.

In all the time that TEO Audio has been in existence there has been only one instance in which someone has come to my home and bought cables. That one instance had Bob Neill visit us to sign a distribution agreement to sell TEO Audio to dealers in Canada ( it should perhaps be noted at this time that the agreement that was signed at that time was in very short order terminated by TEO Audio) During that visit Bob Neill, who is the owner of Worldwide Wholesales, bought only one (1) pair of cables. These cables were a set of our PDL series RCA terminated inter-connects, which at that point was our entry level cable ( at that point TEO Audio had three cables in our catalog, the PDL, the SPDL and the Standard...the Reference which seems to be referred to at times in this thread was still in development and was not yet completed...and certainly never heard by Bob Neill ).

It should also be noted at this present time that Bob Neill and/or Worldwide Wholesales is also the Canadian distributor of HiDiamond cables and Zu products ( please see links listed below )

Have to agree with tbg that it would be very nice to go back to discussing cables but I hope everyone understands that I really have to respond to some recent posts. And I ask the forum's forgiveness in the matter, but I feel I have little choice, and have to deal with a toxic cloud that seems to be hanging over my head.

That being said, I was somewhat surprised and quite disturbed by the response that Sabai posted. I had, mistakenly it seems, thought that I had produced a fairly good argument to buttress our contention that TEO Audio products are safe. But looking at the Sabai posts, which looked, at first blush, to be very well thought out and comprehensive, I realized that we were still not out of the woods.

And rather than engage Sabai in a point by point rebuttal I will, for sake of brevity, try to keep this short, and concentrate on only two points. (the other points I believe have been adequately covered in my earlier post).

The first thing I find odd about Sabai's response is that he continues to pivot his argument on a very strange source, a company that sells water treatment solutions. In doing so, he categorically rejects the medical community, whose research, articles, testing and certification processes confirm the safety of both Galinstan and Geratherm's use of it.

The fact that Lenntech appears to rely on this self-same database to define the focus and scope of their work -seems lost on him (to my knowledge Lenntech has done no independent research in the matter). But, what they have done is creatively craft a storyline that bears every appearance of simply playing into their business plan.

If I were a cynical man I would opine that Sabai has chosen that line and stuck with it, and against all evidence to the contrary, I may add, because more than anything, it says what he wants to hear.

The second point I would like to address is the line drawn from the NCBI study. In and of itself, this line stands as quite a damning statement that puts my claims in a rather bad light (and would likely give pause to anyone who dared deal in any way with indium in its myriad forms). As one can imagine, I found this especially disturbing. But instead of turning tail and running away I decided to run straight into the oncoming fire and seek out that study.

In fairly short order, I found the article (actually it was only the abstract to the article but it did contain the line that Sabai had used to support his contentions, so I was confident I found the self-same study). In my reading of the abstract I found something that was not only very disturbing, but also quite disappointing, though at the same time -most interesting. That very disturbing and quite disappointing part is quite easy to see for anyone who wishes to look at the abstract of the study (the link is here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18931462 ). It is the part of the abstract that outlines the studies' outcome, which incidently, stands in stark contrast to what Sabai is trying to insinuate with the line he pulled from this abstract. It plainly states that there were no adverse responses to the application of rather large doses of indium to the test subjects.( I invite to look at the abstract for full details )

As an aside, I would have liked to have provided access to the full article.....which was kindly provided to me by my partner who has access to PubMed...this is one of the many perks of living with someone who does medical research for a living....but there are difficulties providing that link to the general public. But after reading the full article several times, I can say with certainty that the article accurately reflects the findings of the study.

But just so no one misses the point I will elaborate again. What you find in the abstract is the line that Sabai presented as damning proof of potential problems caused by indium toxicity. Now I have no problems with the presentation of that statement. But it is what immediately follows that statement was the stuff that I found so problematic.

The text of the abstract in its entirety is below....including the part that Sabai managed to mysteriously miss, or maybe, just maybe, intentionally ignored . To put this into perspective, if this kind of thing were to occur in an academic or research setting, termination would soon follow.

Abstract

Indium is widely used in the electronics industry to make semiconductors, liquid-crystal panels, and plasma display panels, and its production is increasing. However, it is necessary to handle it more cautiously than before, because the pulmonary toxicity of inhaled indium has been identified. The present study aimed to characterize the potential toxic effects of indium through oral administration and observation for fourteen days following a single dose of 0 or 2,000 mg/kg (acute oral toxicity study), and repeated oral administration for 28 days at dose levels of 0, 40, 200, or 1,000 mg/kg daily (28-day repeated oral dose toxicity study) to male and female Crj:CD (SD) IGS rats (SPF). No deaths and no abnormalities in clinical signs, body weights, and necropsy findings were observed for any of the animals in the acute oral toxicity study. Furthermore, no changes related to indium were also observed in the dose groups up to 1,000 mg/kg of the 28-day repeated oral dose toxicity study. From the results described above, the lethal dose 50% (LD(50)) of indium is greater than 2,000 mg/kg under these study conditions, and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) is considered to be 1,000 mg/kg for males and females under these conditions.


Now, if I may translate the studies' findings into terms more appropriate to the discussion we are having in this thread, to wit, to reach the NOAEL ( the no-obseved-adverse-effect-level) one would have to ingest in their entirety, the contents of approximately 1232 TEO Audio Liquid Cables over the course of 28 days. And to reach the LD(50) (lethal dose 50% ) levels someone would have to ingest the entire contents of approximately 2464 TEO Audio Liquid Cables in the course of 28 days. ( This is assumimg that the indium in the eutectic alloy we use can be wholly separated out, which is most definitely impossible to do )

To put this into perspective: to achieve the same base level of relative toxicity one would have to ingest 1250mg/day of either Vit A or Vit D ( and according to the study we are discussing the amount of indium that has to be ingested to achieve the same level of toxicity in an average male is approximately 160,000 mg/day).

So where does leave us? Well it seems the study that Sabai introduced into this discussion has unequivocally shown that indium is indeed a safe material to use in the way we use it and the way a client would generally use it. And that, I consider good news. Thank you Sabai.

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.

Before I leave I will give you a small footnote. This indium study was a response to the death of a worker in a plant that produced the transparent conductive films used in flat panel displays ( such as TV's and computer monitors ) In his job this worker inhaled, continuously, for three years, a compound that contained indium, though it should be noted, in a form radically different from either the Galinstan that Sabai rails against, or the alloy we use in our cable.

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.

Again, thank you for your time. I sincerely hope this is the last that I will have to post on this topic