Concert Hall sound

[Blackmorec]

22 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

Cables are the frosting on the cake. Not the cake.  We need to find out how to make the cake right first.

You ever tried a beautifully baked carrot cake without the filling and icing? Still cake, but nowhere near as nice.  Every worthwhile improvement to a stereo system should add additional information and make a recording sound more lifelike and believable.  But I do agree with one thing. If you ‘ice your cake’ with cables and it doesn’t make a difference, you probably need a different baker and a different recipe for the cake

[semente]

4 hours ago, STC said:

I was a victim of armchair critics.

Over here people usually blame the EU. ?

[semente]

5 hours ago, STC said:

 

I was a victim of armchair critics. People who profess expertise without any sort of hands-on experience and often imposing their views based on expertise in a non-related field. In forums, it is hard to share your experience or even suggest something different from the norm as they would be quickly shut off by irrelevant posts and snide remarks. That actually cost me about ten years of my audiophile life chasing the wrong things. Cables didn't help. These armchair critics will always be in this industry as it is hard to rebut them in a very subjective hobby. Often many newcomers either adopt "if you can't beat them join them" strategy or opt out of the forum or the hobby. Some keep them private. 

 

Stereo is never adequate for a full orchestra music. I am only referring to the concert hall sound. ( Armchair critics like to mix up this with studio recordings which actually meant be listen as it is). Anyone with stereo and actual concert hall exposure will know the difference. After years of familiarizing yourself with stereo sound, you somehow have the ability to fill in the missing cues and often feel satisfied with the stereo sound. That is understandable as our hearing evolves and adjust quickly to changes. An example - a neighbour bought a Harley Davidson a couple of years ago. To warm up the bike he usually let the engine running for a few minutes. The sound from the engine/exhaust will reach our home from the right side. It was going on for a couple of days but we couldn't locate the bike as none of the two houses on the right had a bike. Later it emerged, the neighbor who bought the bike was actually on the right side of our house. It was a curious incident for me as a person who loves sound because my ears couldn't localize the sound correctly. So much for the audiophile label. None in the house could but I believe the angle where he parked the bike and the exhaust pointing directly to our outer right boundary wall reflected the sound and made it to appear as if it was coming from the right. However, once we knew where the motorbike was, we now instinctively hear the sound coming from the left and it is no longer heard from the right.  Things are still the same for new visitors, they hear them from the right.

 

To summarize the above para, stereo or multichannel does not contain all the room's cues but due to our past exposure, our brain is just filling in the gaps. It is possible that you may genuinely feel that the playback was capable of recreating the actual event. But what's disappointing is when people who swore that stereo was enough in past but subsequently changed their mind after listening to a proper multichannel format still insisting on being an armchair critic by passing an opinion on why another method would not work. They didn't know what MCH could do before but somehow now they insist other methods would not work. Maybe, when box set of such application becomes a reality then they probably will change the stance.

 

Whatever method I am advocating here wasn't simply pulled off from some dark hole. It was based on proper research and ongoing papers. It is based on science and there are theory and experiment that prove this. Instead of being armchair critics why not address the actual research and the papers itself?  Armchair critics can start here . 

 

 

 

I can feel your pain, and you've made some good points regarding the advantages of Mch over 2-channel and the limitations of stereophonic recording and reproduction.

 

But you have trouble accepting that the alternative you propose doesn't satisfy the large majority both on technical and on sonic and also on practical grounds.

 

You are the Quixote of immersive sound.

[STC]

19 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I can feel your pain, and you've made some good points regarding the advantages of Mch over 2-channel and the limitations of stereophonic recording and reproduction.

 

But you have trouble accepting that the alternative you propose doesn't satisfy the large majority both on technical and on sonic and also on practical grounds.

 

You are the Quixote of immersive sound.

 

Typical of armchair critic. Cannot do himself, never heard one and yet full of opinions. Actually, I am not surprised at all because it requires some basic skills. 

[semente]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

Typical of armchair critic. Cannot do himself, never heard one and yet full of opinions. Actually, I am not surprised at all because it requires some basic skills. 

 

Ha, skills which I no doubt lack.

You like the immersive effect that DSP produces. I'm fine with that, and it was very noticeable in that AB video you made and posted. The fervour with which you promote and defend the technology is also perfectly natural.

 

But I disagree with what you say DSP can achieve. Maybe I'm just thick and lack some skills...maybe you are mistaken.

 

Final question, would you need particular skills and hands-on experience to know that this is a fail?

 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Ha, skills which I no doubt lack.

You like the immersive effect that DSP produces. I'm fine with that, and it was very noticeable in that AB video you made and posted. The fervour with which you promote and defend the technology is also perfectly natural.

 

But I disagree with what you say DSP can achieve. Maybe I'm just thick and lack some skills...maybe you are mistaken.

 

Final question, would you need particular skills and hands-on experience to know that this is a fail?

 

 

You shouldn’t try. It takes courage and skills otherwise you will end up like the video. 

 

Your opinion, which were mostly confused and plucked from audiophile forums means nothing. As a musician, if you think you know better than the opinion of 7 Gold medal winner in World Championship held in US, then you will be disappointed. There are more musicians appreciate what I have accomplished then audiophiles who thinks I am not playing fair irrespective of how it sounds. 

 

And if you think you know better with 3D software because you are an architect, there again you failed to impress me. I was in charge over 30 architects in a highly reputed international firm. As I say, only armchair critics will never address the issue at hand because they lack the comprehension of a complex subject matter which you showed by posting pictures of the spherical speaker and not knowing the experimental sphere purpose. 

 

Between what you said, and what was referred in the paper by scholars and imminent persons in this subject matter, you are nothing but just a troll. Maybe I should stop feeding you. 

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, STC said:

 

You shouldn’t try. It takes courage and skills otherwise you will end up like the video. 

 

Your opinion, which were mostly confused and plucked from audiophile forums means nothing. As a musician, if you think you know better than the opinion of 7 Gold medal winner in World Championship held in US, then you will be disappointed. There are more musicians appreciate what I have accomplished then audiophiles who thinks I am not playing fair irrespective of how it sounds. 

 

And if you think you know better with 3D software because you are an architect, there again you failed to impress me. I was in charge over 30 architects in a highly reputed international firm. As I say, only armchair critics will never address the issue at hand because they lack the comprehension of a complex subject matter which you showed by posting pictures of the spherical speaker and not knowing the experimental sphere purpose. 

 

Between what you said, and what was referred in the paper by scholars and imminent persons in this subject matter, you are nothing but just a troll. Maybe I should stop feeding you. 

 

 

Well, I don't see anyone agreing with you in this subject except perhaps Ralph and was it beer&music? Are we all trolls or is it just me. Is it possible that maybe you're preaching to the wrong crowd?

You are passionate about immersive, that is great.

As long as you don't say that you can reconstruct the original soundfield from a stereo recording then I'm fine. Say it and you'll be feeding this cowardly, skilless troll...

I also don't agree that your DSP'ing somehow gets more information from the stereo recording, it's just using what's there to create something different (which is not the original soundfield), it's making stuff up and messing up other aspects of sound in the process, which is why it sounds weird to some people.

[STC]

47 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Well, I don't see anyone agreing with you in this subject except perhaps Ralph and was it beer&music? Are we all trolls or is it just me. Is it possible that maybe you're preaching to the wrong crowd?

You are passionate about immersive, that is great.

As long as you don't say that you can reconstruct the original soundfield from a stereo recording then I'm fine. Say it and you'll be feeding this cowardly, skilless troll...

I also don't agree that your DSP'ing somehow gets more information from the stereo recording, it's just using what's there to create something different (which is not the original soundfield), it's making stuff up and messing up other aspects of sound in the process, which is why it sounds weird to some people.

 

Looks like only you because your comprehension of obvious facts is in doubt. Never mind about misquoting me and blaming the CA software but generally most of your reply will not address issues raised in the post but come up with something else. 

 

1) Ralph Glasgal is physicist  and the institute is for psychoacoustics research. 

 

2) His research and the recreation of concert hall acoustics is a reference for other research. You would have known that if you bothered to read the master thesis paper that I linked earlier. 

 

3) where did I say recreating the original sound field? Making up your own interpretation as usual? Didn’t I say, the recording will only have the frontal ambience for stereo?  

 

4) It is a disgrace to Ralph if you say that Ralph is agreeing with me. He is the pioneer and I am just duplicating as per his guide which is available to all. So all this while you were still ignorant of the obvious? 

 

5) The institute is a reference and home to university students for research. 

 

6) the BACCH banner you see in CA page was created by one of the early contributor of Ambiophonics. Ralph RACE is free for for all and the RACE plugin is used in other software. Meanwhile BACCH is a far superior algorithm but was commercialized. Ralph’s 40 over years of research was meant for the public FOC.  

 

7) I will defend anyone’s right to disagree with me as long they not pretentious of knowing something which they don’t. 

 

8 ) You are probably right that my audience probably do not understand it. When I want to use Reaper for this project, I got encouragement and guide in pro audio forum almost immediately. They can see the potential of this concept. Not one guy there preaches about natural reverbs or DSP’s ill effect unlike here. 

 

9) i have repeatedly asked you to refrain from disagreeing without providing coherent rebuttal. I replied almost to every one issues you raised. You neither acknowledge them nor bothered to understand it but then started to throw other irrelevant matters not related to the OP. 

 

10) whether DSP is making up stuff or not is easy to prove. I can give you 20 samples of natural and DSP processed sound. Do you want to take a blind test?  

 

I expect you to address the 10 points I raised here in your reply. Otherwise, the feeding stops and you have the honor of being  the first troll to be in my ignore list. 

[semente]

I understand your passion and your defensive position but it would be polite if you toned down your agressiveness a notch.

 

1 hour ago, STC said:

You are probably right that my audience probably do not understand it. When I want to use Reaper for this project, I got encouragement and guide in pro audio forum almost immediately. They can see the potential of this concept. Not one guy there preaches about natural reverbs or DSP’s ill effect unlike here.

 

This subject has been discussed extensively and hardly anyone seems to agree with you (except for ex-users @witchdoctor & @AJ Soundfield).

I have followed and participated in these discussions and queried Ralph directly here , here, here and here.

 

I guess we will never understand each other. This post summarises our interchanges pretty well:

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, GeneZ said:

Not throwing rocks at all.   You just confessed what I was hoping you would admit to.

 

That being...    You are in no position to know what another system will sound like with a change like was being spoken of. 

Yeah, I am.

[GeneZ]

10 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

You ever tried a beautifully baked carrot cake without the filling and icing? Still cake, but nowhere near as nice.  Every worthwhile improvement to a stereo system should add additional information and make a recording sound more lifelike and believable.  But I do agree with one thing. If you ‘ice your cake’ with cables and it doesn’t make a difference, you probably need a different baker and a different recipe for the cake

 Exactly.   Thank you. 

[GeneZ]

4 hours ago, STC said:

 

Looks like only you because your comprehension of obvious facts is in doubt. Never mind about misquoting me and blaming the CA software but generally most of your reply will not address issues raised in the post but come up with something else. 

 

1) Ralph Glasgal is physicist  and the institute is for psychoacoustics research. 

 

2) His research and the recreation of concert hall acoustics is a reference for other research. You would have known that if you bothered to read the master thesis paper that I linked earlier. 

 

3) where did I say recreating the original sound field? Making up your own interpretation as usual? Didn’t I say, the recording will only have the frontal ambience for stereo?  

 

4) It is a disgrace to Ralph if you say that Ralph is agreeing with me. He is the pioneer and I am just duplicating as per his guide which is available to all. So all this while you were still ignorant of the obvious? 

 

5) The institute is a reference and home to university students for research. 

 

6) the BACCH banner you see in CA page was created by one of the early contributor of Ambiophonics. Ralph RACE is free for for all and the RACE plugin is used in other software. Meanwhile BACCH is a far superior algorithm but was commercialized. Ralph’s 40 over years of research was meant for the public FOC.  

 

7) I will defend anyone’s right to disagree with me as long they not pretentious of knowing something which they don’t. 

 

8 ) You are probably right that my audience probably do not understand it. When I want to use Reaper for this project, I got encouragement and guide in pro audio forum almost immediately. They can see the potential of this concept. Not one guy there preaches about natural reverbs or DSP’s ill effect unlike here. 

 

9) i have repeatedly asked you to refrain from disagreeing without providing coherent rebuttal. I replied almost to every one issues you raised. You neither acknowledge them nor bothered to understand it but then started to throw other irrelevant matters not related to the OP. 

 

10) whether DSP is making up stuff or not is easy to prove. I can give you 20 samples of natural and DSP processed sound. Do you want to take a blind test?  

 

I expect you to address the 10 points I raised here in your reply. Otherwise, the feeding stops and you have the honor of being  the first troll to be in my ignore list. 

 

These battles within the major war can be something to be watched while having a lunch break when ones own skirmish has abated for a moment.

 

Nothing can recreate the original performance when its extracted from two channel recordings.  But, it can create something that convincingly could pass for an original performance.   In that sense.. its "induced sense of realism" when its done well.  Which, by the way?  Is a good thing. 

[gmgraves]

11 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 On your system its that way.

 

Its not always their imagination when others do hear differences.  That is when  you get very self righteous. Various interconnects can and do sound different in how they effect the signal.  If you want to believe they don't?  Then on your system they don't.

 

11 hours ago, GeneZ said:

My "self righteousness " is the result of much experimentation and more than a couple of DBTs. I've heard differences in interconnects, but I've also learned that those differences are my imagination, because in a blind test with a cheaper cable, those difference disappear ad win they really weren't there in the first place. 

 

11 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

Why not simply say? "On my system they make no difference."   I'm fine with that.  But, when you begin saying others are imagining hearing things if they say they do?  I wonder how you can say that?   When you have told us you refuse to try the other cables to know if its true.

When something is physically impossible, then people who think they se of hear impossible things are usually imaging things, wouldn't you say so? 

11 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

And, how fuses make no difference when you refuse to try them?  Something is not logical - nor fair - when you denigrate others without any attempt to verify on your part. 

Please explain how a quarter-inch conductor in the primary transformer circuit of any component could make the slightest difference in the operation of that component. If you can show me the mathematics behind this bit of voodoo, witchcraft, and sorcery, and explain the electrical theory behind it, I'll order one today! 

Also. Don't take these debates so personally. Nobody's "denigrating others". We're having a debate where we find ourselves on opposite sides of some issues. It's not personal. I bare no one Ill will, and I expect that people with whom I engage here grant me the same courtesy. 

11 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 

For a while I thought maybe you had tried fuses and cables and heard no difference.  Now,  you are letting us know you never bothered.   Then its just prejudice and bigotry in an audiophile sense you manifest towards others. 

GeneZ, I never tried climbing on the roof of my apartment building, flapping my bare arms and jumping off in order to fly either, but all that means is that I know that the laws of aerodynamics don't allow that to be possible. No, you're right I never wasted $150 - $200 on a worthless piece of bogus junk to find out what I already know. But I did replace an amplifier mains fuse once with a large 10 gauge  piece of solid copper wire. I went back and forth between the factory fit Buss fuse and the slug of copper. I detected no difference and my audiophile buddies detected no difference. See, The only characteristic that a fuse can have in the mains circuit of a device is impedance. To make any measurable or audible improvement, the fuse would have to have far less impedance than a regular fuse! Do you agree with that assessment? A regular fuse has a piece of wire in it less than an inch long. If you could measure the DC resistance of that wire (and no ohm-meter that I know of could measure a resistance that low. It's so low that for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. Now granted, like a light bulb filament the resistance goes up with temperature. But that only occurs when the fuse's current rating is exceeded, at which point the impedance of the fuse is a moot point because it's about to blow anyway.

So. I figured that since the only thing an audio fuse could possibly do to sound "better" than a regular fuse is have less resistance. The least resistance possible , is no fuse at all. Can't get any better than that. So I inserted a copper slug in the fuse holder. Of course I could have wired around the fuse holder, eliminating it altogether, but that's too much work. The result was that no one could hear the slightest difference between the copper slug and the factory fitted fuse.  

Now, if you can relate the electrical principles behind this "audiophile fuse" to us, and they seem electrically sound, I will reconsider my stance on this issue. Good luck with that because the audiophile fuse's own manufacturer can't do that. 

 

[GeneZ]

51 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

 

When something is physically impossible, then people who think they se of hear impossible things are usually imaging things, wouldn't you say so? 

 

 

 

I have coined a new term for certain people think a certain way who own audio equipment. 

 

The Audio KKK.  

 

They are self assured bigots.  Instead of saying "ni__er lover?"  They use.. "fuse lover."

 

It fits perfectly.  Its the same kind of closed mindedness being applied.  Its ignorance seeing itself as being the informed. 

 

Have a nice day. 

[Jud]

Now to be fair you guys have to go post about concert hall sound in the audiophile fuse thread. 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, GeneZ said:

 Close miking to me is when I see the mics right near the top of every drum head..... Its potentially the worst possible place to hear a drum from and requires unnatural muffling to record .  Drums sound most realistic when heard out and away from them in a room.  One exception when recording is close miking a bass drum, because its usually very muffled anyway. 

 

 

 

Close miking can be that, it can also be mikes just a few feet from a group of instruments. It differs from far-field miking due to that distance. A symphony orchestra, for example, is best miked from a stereo microphone arrangement over the conductor's head and 10-15 ft behind him. That way the microphones' pick-up pattern covers the entire ensemble. Below is a university jazz band recorded (by me) in true stereo (the stereo mike on the left of the picture). It is a classic example of far-field miking. While not as distant as I would use for a symphony orchestra, the mike consists of two large-diaphragm condenser mikes in one housing. The top mike element rotates in relation to the bottom one. I have to admit here that I had to highlight the piano and pan the highlight mike into position as the main mike didn't pick it up well enough due to the acoustics of the stage. But the highlight is subtle, you can't tell listening to the recording that the piano is high-lighted. You can see the piano mike in the picture (click to enlarge) it's just to the right of the music stand nearest the piano.

[gmgraves]

15 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

 

I have coined a new term for certain people think a certain way who own audio equipment. 

 

The Audio KKK.  

 

They are self assured bigots.  Instead of saying "ni__er lover?"  They use.. "fuse lover."

 

It fits perfectly.  Its the same kind of closed mindedness being applied.  Its ignorance seeing itself as being the informed. 

 

Have a nice day. 

GeneZ, again, you are taking this stuff much too personally. A bigot is someone who's opinions are formed in a vacuum without the facts. But you are asking people who have the facts to believe something that you believe ON FAITH alone. You have no facts to back up your assertions RE interconnects or mains fuses. You say that you can hear the differences and as far as you're concerned, it's case closed. But you don't know WHY interconnects should change a simple audio signal passing through them and yet not affect any other field of signal transfer. You can't explain it and you ignore others who say that it can't be explained because it doesn't exist and then show you WHY it can't exist. Same with mains fuses. Neither you nor anyone else on this earth can explain why is would be possible for a fuse to do what you think it does. The principles of electricity again say that it's not possible. Not casting any aspersions, here, mind you, but it looks to me that you're the one who's bigoted and I'll prove it.

What do you call somebody who discriminates against people because of their race? A bigot, right? Yet genetic science tells us that there is absolutely NO biological basis for the concept of race! By the same token, you believe in Interconnect sound and mains fuse sound, yet physics tells us that there absolutely NO electrical or electronic basis for either of these concepts. Now, who's being bigoted?

You have a nice day too.   

[GeneZ]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

GeneZ, again, you are taking this stuff much too personally. A bigot is someone who's opinions are formed in a vacuum without the facts. But you are asking people who have the facts to believe something that you believe ON FAITH alone.

 

Faith?  When they can easily verify for themselves? 

 

What I speak of requires empiricism.  Not faith. 

 

They have two ears. They who have ears to hear will know that you are lost.   But, you won't.....  Audio KKK  meeting tonight at 11pm.   

 

Bigots are to be found in all walks of life. ....  "dumb fuse lover!" 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeneZ]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Close miking can be that, it can also be mikes just a few feet from a group of instruments. It differs from far-field miking due to that distance. A symphony orchestra, for example, is best miked from a stereo microphone arrangement over the conductor's head and 10-15 ft behind him. That way the microphones' pick-up pattern covers the entire ensemble. Below is a university jazz band recorded (by me) in true stereo (the stereo mike on the left of the picture). It is a classic example of far-field miking. While not as distant as I would use for a symphony orchestra, the mike consists of two large-diaphragm condenser mikes in one housing. The top mike element rotates in relation to the bottom one. I have to admit here that I had to highlight the piano and pan the highlight mike into position as the main mike didn't pick it up well enough due to the acoustics of the stage. But the highlight is subtle, you can't tell listening to the recording that the piano is high-lighted. You can see the piano mike in the picture (click to enlarge) it's just to the right of the music stand nearest the piano.

 

 

  Interesting,....   your way of recording was what I was looking for when I was going to record my drums for a more realistic presentation.  I had to settle for a small room studio with close miking...  But, it turned out OK in its own way.  Still wish I could have done it your way.

 

And,  here is something that I would imagine is a new approach that is still being worked on. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeneZ]

15 hours ago, STC said:

 

I am not a cable believer. But now, I would say sometimes it is possible.

 

IMO, based on what I have done and observed, I think the different some users may hear in the system in the first place was usually due using cables with high capacitance or inductance. These cables are usually long together with the amplifier and speakers play a role. With a 12 foot  Audioquest speaker cables with 250Watter Classe Audio amplifier driving the easy to drive Harbeth, I never really heard any difference until I used the same cable and amplifier to drive the low impedance (certain frequencies) Sound Lab electrostatics speakers. I didn't do proper blind test but when I replaced the Audioquest with Kimber or Cardas, it made a different. I then got low inductance Mogami cables about 80cm and the HF improved further. 

 

However, when I need to move the speakers and the 80cm speakers cables were too short, I replaced them with a 14AWG zip cord type off the shelves speaker cables and I did not hear any difference.  In my case, I think it was the unusual characteristic of the cables, length, difficult to drive speakers made the difference. Once again, I didn't do a proper blind test but just stating what could be one of the reasons why some might perceive difference with cables. 

 

 

Back in the eighties I used to own an Amber 50b.   In its day was very respectable.  It had an uncommon, very thick double sided circuit board designed to enhance flow.  One thing.   The wires that went from the phono inputs to the circuit board consisted of typical stranded wire. 

 

I substituted two small runs of thin gauge litz wire. After, that was done that certain high frequency 'hash' sound that was common to audio back then was now eliminated. 

 

Considering how high that phone cartridge signal gets amplified little things can sometimes make a big difference.

 

I was using a beautiful Grado Signature tone arm.. It came wired with litz.   And, I was able to locate a litz TT cable.   High end hash from the TT was gone. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

54 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

 

Back in the eighties I used to own an Amber 50b.   In its day was very respectable.  It had an uncommon, very thick double sided circuit board designed to enhance flow.  One thing.   The wires that went from the phono inputs to the circuit board consisted of typical stranded wire. 

 

I substituted two small runs of thin gauge litz wire. After, that was done that certain high frequency 'hash' sound that was common to audio back then was now eliminated. 

 

Considering how high that phone cartridge signal gets amplified little things can sometimes make a big difference.

 

I was using a beautiful Grado Signature tone arm.. It came wired with litz.   And, I was able to locate a litz TT cable.   High end hash from the TT was gone. 

So, in the context of this thread topic on achieving Concert Hall sound, your answer, as repeated and repeated and then defended by you, seems to be about the absolutely essential importance of using the right kind of wire.  Do I have that right?

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

So, in the context of this thread topic on achieving Concert Hall sound, your answer, as repeated and repeated and then defended by you, seems to be about the absolutely essential importance of using the right kind of wire.  Do I have that right?

 

Also, anyone who disagrees with him is either:

 

1. A sadist

2. A bully

3. A bigot

4. Two or more of the above

[GeneZ]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Also, anyone who disagrees with him is either:

Not anyone...  Its HOW.  

 

When someone refuses to try something, and tells you its useless?   I should bother with you, too?  Did you not read that his own opinion was simply based upon his own biased guess and assumption..  Yet, he is sure.  Its trolling.

 

Have a nice day.... join the pack. 

[mansr]

22 minutes ago, GeneZ said:

When someone refuses to try something, and tells you its useless?

Like flapping one's arms in order to fly?

[GeneZ]

12 minutes ago, mansr said:

Like flapping one's arms in order to fly?

 More like expecting someone like you to be fair minded.