Teo XLR
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 |
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, 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. |
So you see if you were to use chocolate in your cables and a dog were to chew into it and consume it and die it would be more toxic than indium. Raisins are also toxic to most dogs so when I upgrade to the Reference cables please no raisins in the mix. Sabai you should take a listen to the Teo cables. You just might unload the LL. |
Cue The Police: Every breath you take And every move you make Every bond you break, every step you take I'll be watching you Every single day And every word you say Every game you play, every night you stay I'll be watching you Oh can't you see You belong to me How my poor heart aches With every step you take Every move you make And every vow you break Every smile you fake, every claim you stake I'll be watching you ...et cetera... |
And in the "Synergistic Research - NEW Element Cable" thread you responded to Audiofeil when challenged to relate your years of audio experience with this post, "Too long a story to relate here. And irrelevant..." Could you be any more hypocritical with your last post in this thread by calling out Taras22 for not, "...taking the time to rebut my points." What a total hypocrite. |
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. |
"...the word hypocrisy is not appropriate here..." Sure it is. You may not like it or agree with it, but I can promise you that there are others here who see your hypocrisy for what it is. The fact is that you criticized Taras22 for failing to answer your charges and at the same time in the Synergistic thread, when Audiofeil called you out, you failed to answer his charge by hiding behind the lame response, "Too long a story to relate here. And irrelevant..." Amazingly, you have written pages of responses in the Teo thread, but when ask a simple question to establish your audio experience, all of a sudden it becomes, "Too long a story..." No, nothing at all hypocritical here. Give me a break. |
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. |
Sabai, once again this becomes a circular argument. You simply are guilty of the same thing that you accuse others of followed by another denial in some sort of flowery, sweet-smelling philosophical prose about bullying and mockery. You can spread all of the manure you want in a rose garden, but when folks walk out they know exactly what they have on their shoes. |
I'd like to preface my thread with ( I've been in this hobby for 40 plus years) and have auditioned and owned more cables than I can remember. The Teo std. IC's are the "best" cables I have ever heard in my system. Period...Simply the most natural, linear, dynamic, organic, grain-free, unetched, micro and macro enhanced, distortion less, incredible depth of image and width of soundstage IC's I know of. Wish I could afford the speaker cables! |
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. |
Tbg: I have been listening to "cables" since about '82 when discrete tech. And FMS were some of the better lines. From then many lines have graced my systems-each was a step up in performance. I personally think naming those lines would be a disservice to those manufacturers. However, for many years I stayed with the intuitive design cables by dale pitcher. These bested all others in my system until I heard the Teo liquid IC's. They are shocking in their musicality and listen ability. ( I know I used a lot of adjectives to describe the Teo's in the previous thread). That was not an over the top thread- the Teo's are that good. You have a great system as the Diaceras are one of my personal favorite speakers. Try the Teo IC's-I think you will have a new reference. |
I've been an Audiogon member for many years, and don't post much, but I just discovered this thread, and would like to contribute. I met Brian Walsh (Essentialaudio) when I purchase a Kuzma 4-point tonearm from him some years ago. He introduced me to Teo cables. He could have easily contacted me and asked me to post on this thread, but he didn't. I found it accidentally by myself, because I like Teo cables (as well as many other brands of components), and therefore occasionally search the forums for discussions on them. I was immediately blown away by the standard Teo ICs, compared A/B with the Kubala-Sosna Emotions and Elations, in my system. I liked them so much that besides replacing every short IC with them, I convinced Teo to make a 6.5 m pair (apparently never before done)to reach my CAT JL-3 monoblocks. The difference was nothing short of phenomenal. I have not even thought about auditioning other cables since then. The Teo standard ICs, at ($2500-$3000)/m, I actually think are a great bargain. Prior to the Kubala ICs, I had high-end Transparent Audios (can't remember which). Kubala blew them away, Teo blew the Kubalas away. I had Kubala Elation speaker cables connecting CAT JL-3 monoblocks to Acoustat Spectra 66s when I first auditioned the TEO SCs. The Teo standard speaker cables were initially dramatic in comparison, but I ultimately concluded they lacked the smoothness of the Elations, despite having some other real positives, mainly a dramatic "presence." Brian subsequently lent me some Teo reference speaker cables to try. I evaluated them at my leisure in my own system, and ended up selling the (excellent) Elations and keeping the (yes, even better) Teos. 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. Many things are potentially "toxic." I personally would not consume Indium, or intentionally breathe it for long periods. I would be even more careful about not touching hot vacuum tubes, or letting my 2-year-old or 5-year-old do so. I would be yet more careful about not putting my fingers or metal objects in electrical outlets, or on bare speaker terminals. 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. Having said that, I wouldn't let my kids chew on them. I also wouldn't let them touch hot vacuum tubes, explore electrical outlets, or take a bath without an adult present. |
This is one strange and fairly obnoxious thread all around. That said, the Teo sounds interesting, and as I've stated elsewhere I'm always interested in trying out new gear, especially when others seem to be raving about it. Is there a loaner/tester program for the ICs? Also, more detail on pricing, specifically a 1m set of xlr. I'm currently burning in and comparing the HiDiamond xlr 2 to my old AQ Sky. So far, appreciating the HD very much. Apparently Teo's arch nemesis. Could be interesting to throw the Teo xlr into the fray as well. |
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, 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. |
Hornguys, your post raises some questions. - Specifically, what model(s) of cables did you audition? Were they the current Mk II version, which are a substantial improvement over Mk I? Teo Audio has offered free upgrades of Mk I cables for my customers -- try getting that from other manufacturers. - For what length of time did you audition them? Did you order them from Teo Audio, or did someone send them to you to try, since you said "I sent them back"? Since you didn't audition the speaker cables I don't know how you can comment on their value. Further, there are other cables out there in the same price range. Not long ago you posted to this thread, in which you also praised the cables' performance. Brian Walsh |
You're right - I have no business commenting on the speaker cables which I never heard. I did have the latest XLR ICs. It's only my personal opinion that they cannot survive at these price points without a more compelling story that reaches many more prospective buyers. But it's just opinion - based only from my experience - not from any inside knowledge. I found myself wishing they would license the technology to one of the better known cable manufactures with greater economies of scale, but I guess the "not invented here" thinking prevents that. |
Wow, this thread took on a life! I had a chance to run a full Teo loom 2 x interconnect and speaker cable a little while back. I own an interconnect and borrowed the other 2 pieces. The full loom did have a positive impact. Theres a lovely sense of flow and natural tone that these cables impart in my system. I do struggle when it comes to material value. I can't see where all that money has gone when holding the cables in my hands (in particular the speaker cable). Having said that one of these days when I can divert some funds from other projects I'll look to buy another interconnect but for me the speaker cable is a step to far. While the Teo are better I love the way my system sounds without the extra cables, I can live without them and relatively the impact they make seems to me to be modest in the context of some other changes. For instance changing the original tubes for NOS Mullard in my Pre had a greater impact on the way my system conveys music than the cables. When other avenues for upgraging at the price have been exhausted they're worth a look in my opinion. For me they're an icing on the cake product. Expensive icing to be sure so the cake best be good and the wallet deep. |
