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.
