# What computer monitor resolution are you using for your DAW?



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

I have been toying around with going back to 1080p for my DAW. I have two 43" 4k monitors. I am fatigued from squinting at so many apps and plugins that do not scale well. As I have been experimenting, if feels "cleaner", and more focused. 

I am curious what resolution others are running?


----------



## Traz (Aug 22, 2020)

I also use a 43" 4k screen, although I increased the scaling size from 100% to 125%. Maybe try adjusting the scaling size and see if that helps.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Aug 22, 2020)

4k on a 50" at about 1.5m away. Definitely difficult to read small text but I find the real-estate indispensable for orchestration and mixing. I've thought about getting one of the half 4k wide ones to be less in the way but I watch movies in here so I need a normal screen in here. Projector would be ideal but I can't have that kind of noise in here and 4K ones cost a fortune.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

32" monitor, 4k, but running in HiDpi mode at 3008x1692. Sometimes I run it at 3200x1800 hiDPI.

How far are you between your eyes to the monitor? If you're squinting at 4k native on the 43" then I guess you must be a fair distance away more than 3 feet?. 

Just try some hiDPI modes until you aren't squinting anymore.


----------



## Technostica (Aug 22, 2020)

32" 2560x1440 and 24" 1920x1200.
I chose them because they are easy to read at native resolution so no scaling required 
The next step up would be 4K but that would need to be about 43" to give the same text size which would dominate the desk probably, although the 32" seemed large at first.

I'm amazed that Apple still make an iMac with a 21.5" screen in 2020. Tiny.


----------



## Noeticus (Aug 22, 2020)

1920 x 1200


----------



## Kent (Aug 22, 2020)

3200x1800 on a 50" ~3' away


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2020)

Superwide 3440x 1440p Main
Second monitor for Console 1 etc...1080p


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Aug 22, 2020)

Synetos said:


> I am fatigued from squinting at so many apps and plugins that do not scale well.


Reason why I didn't go 4K but 2K where scaling isn't required. 3440x1440, any 1440p would work excellently.

4K is for photo and video applications. It isn't suited for anything else, it's practically TV format (unless you really go 100% crispy scaling but everything will turn out to be tiny).

Cheers


----------



## Hadrondrift (Aug 22, 2020)

Old School, Two 24'' at 1920x1200. Will maybe go 2x 2560x1440, but definitely not 4K/HiDPI (Windows)

I remember my times on the ATARI ST, the monitor SM124 was black only on white and had a resolution of 640 x 400. Unbelievable, but working.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

With monitors you have two resolutions at play. You have the monitor's native resolution, and you have the virtual resolution being used by the OS.

The native resolution is what the monitor is capable of at the hardware level. The virtual resolution is displayed resolution considered by the OS to be your desktop workspace. That determines how big or small your fonts will be. You can calculate a PPI (Pixels Per Inch) value based on the virtual resolution using the following calculator:









Pixels Per Inch PPI Calculator


PPI Calculator finds pixels per inch (PPI) and pixels per square inch (PPI^2). Calculate screen resolution and pixel density using width and height of display screen in pixels. Also find dot pitch and diagonal in pixels. Enter screen diagonal in inches or cm.




www.calculatorsoup.com





Basically, for a typical computer display 2 feet from your eyes, the ideal virtual PPI is somewhere around 95-105ppi, though I routinely use mine at 110ppi. (bigger ppi is smaller fonts) 

Most people looking at a display in this range will feel the font size is not too big and not too small. Some people will claim they have eyes from an alien species and are able to read smaller fonts routinely, but honestly they are freaks of nature and probably change their mind later too. The truth is around 95-105ppi from 2 feet away is what the vast majority of people will consider to be a "normal" looking display that is not too squinty and not too jumbo sized either..but rather just about right.

The original Apple 30" Cinema Display, which many regarded as nearly perfect in this kind of way, was at 102 pp when using its highest resolution. It was a very readable display in terms of size of fonts, etc..some people could probably handle slightly smaller fonts then it had, others would say it was perfect. So perhaps a better ideal range might be 100-110 ppi for the virtual resolution at 2 feet.

Now if you are sitting with your eyes further away then 2-3 feet, then the PPI value needs to be smaller in order to have larger readable fonts, but I do not know how to calculate what the PPI should be at various distances so that it more or less equates to reading 105 ppi from 2 feet away. You can take some guesses or at least see what you are dealing with by using the calculator above.

Now the *native resolution* is a separate thing. You can scale your virtual resolution two different ways, one way is just simple scaling which will result in lower resolution virtual resolution, with a lower PPI, and it will be pixelated that way, regardless of what the monitor is capable of; if it has, for example, a higher native resolution such as 4k.

If you use *HiDPI* modes (which I highly recommend), then you can run a higher resolution native 4k monitor with a lower virtual resolution. That basically results in the lower virtual PPI for readable fonts, but still uses the complete 4k resolution for line curves and stuff like that. That is the best of both worlds.

So what I can say is this, you need to determine several things, presuming you want to read fonts normally without squinting.


how far away will you be sitting from the monitor


what virtual PPI will satisfy the the requirement to make all the fonts easily readable from that distance without being "too" big? For 2 feet away that is likely to be 105ppi. From further distances it will need to be a smaller value


Using the above calculator you can then calculate what virtual resolutions you need to run for whatever size monitor you plan to use from that distance.


Get a 4k monitor (or higher) and use HiDPI modes to scale it down to the virtual resolution selected above. This will give smoother curved lines and even more readable fonts, plus you will always have the option to use a higher virtual resolution if you are going to, for example, use LogicPro for a while and don't need to be able to read too many fonts, so you'd rather see more mixer channels on screen or whatever...then no problem, the 4k monitor will support that and you can use a slightly higher resolution HiDPI mode.
I personally find 32" 4k monitor to be perfect at 2 feet away from my eyes at 3008x1692hidpi virtual resolution. Sometimes I even run it at 3200x1800 and it reads ok, but everything is a little more clear at 3008x1692hidpi, so I tend to use that. However, when my eyes get tired I go to lower HiDPI resolution in order to see the fonts closer to 105ppi. 

As far as 43" monitors go, I personally think that is too big to be 2 feet away from my face, because I don't want to have to turn my head from side to side so much. Actually I find even the 32" causes some neck strain when looking near the top of the display a lot, but I am going to remount my monitor to get around that.

However, if you have a 43" more like 3-5 feet away from your eyes, then it might be just about right in terms of turning head side to side, it would be similar as 32" from 2 feet. I think probably the 43" virtual resolutions at that distance would be very similar as what I am doing with the 32" from 2 feet. But I haven't had one to know for sure or to make any claims about ideal PPI from 3-5 feet away.


----------



## pinki (Aug 22, 2020)

Super useful post Dewdman42. 
Im toying with the idea of putting a bigger monitor further away- on my front wall in fact. So a 43” with HiDpi (whatever that is!) is something I wil investigate. Thank you.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

I'm planning to put a monitor on the back wall also, not sure yet what size, I tend to think 50" on the back wall, not sure whether I will bother with hiDPI for that one, but I will certain try it! That monitor won't be used for reading fonts a lot, so I think native resolution at that size would be fine. A smaller one, like 43" on the back wall, probably will need to be scaled down to read from that far away anything, but I could be wrong...seems like when I was getting all OCD about this a while back and trying to work out math to figure it out, I decided that anything under 50" would probably need to be scaled down from 4k native to be usable from say 5-6 feet away on the wall. I can't remember now.. but anyway, you definitely want to get the highest native resolution that your video card can handle so that you have scaling options..and when scaling, try to use HiDPI. (In windows its called something else, I think its just the display scale or something like that).


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

Another consideration is an ultra-wide monitor, but if anyone is considering an ultra-wide, consider that they are currently not high enough resolution to use HiDPI modes. So that native resolution basically needs to be perfect for the viewing distance you will be using. Some of them are just about perfect. I want to possibly replace my 32" 4k with a 50" ultra wide, which basically has to be run native mode and ends up I think 105ppi.. which would probably be just about right font sizes from 3 feet away. 

The nice thing about an ultra wide is that you don't strain your neck looking at the top of the display and also you can easily look over the top of it at a nice big monitor on the wall as well.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

The one I want is expensive though. :-||


----------



## ptram (Aug 22, 2020)

2304 x 1296 (2K Ultra HD) on a 27” 4K display, at about 90cm of viewing distance.

Paolo


----------



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> The one I want is expensive though. :-||


Thanks for all the ideas! By HiDPI, do you mean scaling in Win10? Leaving it at 4k and then scaling it at ratiosn other than the default options?

I am 3 ft from the screen. I just measured it. I cant be any closer to the monitor for the same reasons you mentioned.


----------



## Sunny Schramm (Aug 22, 2020)

2560x1440 on a 27" - but it feels much too small. I hope I can get a Samsung Odyssey G7 or G9 in the next month - minimum 32".


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

Synetos said:


> Thanks for all the ideas! By HiDPI, do you mean scaling in Win10? Leaving it at 4k and then scaling it at ratiosn other than the default options?
> 
> I am 3 ft from the screen. I just measured it. I cant be any closer to the monitor for the same reasons you mentioned.



I believe in Windows they have built in support for HiDPI which is activated when you use the windows scaling option(not the video card's scaling option). If you go to like 125% as someone suggested, then basically you get bigger fonts and all that, but all the lines and curves are represented by the full 4k resolution of the monitor.

On the Mac you configure it a different way and its shown as HiDPI..for example, these are the resolutions I have currently enabled on my mac:"


----------



## pinki (Aug 22, 2020)

On Mac don’t you have to download developers tools to access Hdpi?


----------



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> I believe in Windows they have built in support for HiDPI which is activated when you use the windows scaling option(not the video card's scaling option). If you go to like 125% as someone suggested, then basically you get bigger fonts and all that, but all the lines and curves are represented by the full 4k resolution of the monitor.
> 
> On the Mac you configure it a different way and its shown as HiDPI..for example, these are the resolutions I have currently enabled on my mac:"


Thanks. Yes, if I go 150% while setting the monitor at 4k, it basically makes it a 1440P with better clarity than changing the monitor settings to 2560x1440. I think that is where I will set it for now. 1080P is just to big and it's like going from a 5 acre lot, to a city lot. ha


----------



## rrichard63 (Aug 22, 2020)

I have an ultrawide (2560 x 1080, 0.31 mm pixel size). It's mounted 24 inches away because that's how the prescription for my current computer glasses was written. I love the aspect ratio for working in DAWs and VI's, but because of the width and distance I have to put my speakers too far apart.

There's no right answer to this dilemma, at least not for me. Especially given that Kontakt isn't ever going to get any easier to see.

With regard to changing the font size from 100% to something larger, I've encountered software that just plain doesn't work when this Windows setting is changed from the default. If I recall correctly, that includes some IK Multimedia programs.


----------



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> Reason why I didn't go 4K but 2K where scaling isn't required. 3440x1440, any 1440p would work excellently.
> 
> 4K is for photo and video applications. It isn't suited for anything else, it's practically TV format (unless you really go 100% crispy scaling but everything will turn out to be tiny).
> 
> Cheers


My son ordered one of the new gaming monitors that I think are 4k, but wrap around. Not here yet, but I have thought about how it might be to have 2 of them stacked.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

Just to put some clarity on some of the various resolutions that have been mentioned so far.. Here are the font size PPI values each of those people has settled on as being their favorite setting:

24" 1920x1200 @94ppi

50" 4k native @88ppi (4.5 feet viewing distance)

32" 3008x1692hidpi @110ppi

32" 2560x1440 @91ppi

50" 3200x1800 @72ppi (3 feet away)

27" 2304x1296 @98ppi (90cm viewing distance)

27" 2560x1440 @109ppi (he says it feels too squinty)

etc...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

rrichard63 said:


> With regard to changing the font size from 100% to something larger, I've encountered software that just plain doesn't work when this Windows setting is changed from the default. If I recall correctly, that includes some IK Multimedia programs.



MacOSX generally handles HiDPI modes better because the entire Retina monitor line is using it. Windows has gotten better about it in recent years though.

For the ultra wide I doubt you have enough resolution to use scaling anyway. Ultrawide monitors don't have a tight enough pixel pitch, they have 4k or sometimes 5k worth of pixels spread out over a larger area. So basically they generally just need to work out for you at native resolution for the most part. If they aren't big enough fonts for the distance you will use them, then I would not recommend.


----------



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

rrichard63 said:


> I have an ultrawide (2560 x 1080, 0.31 mm pixel size). It's mounted 24 inches away because that's how the prescription for my current computer glasses was written. I love the aspect ratio for working in DAWs and VI's, but because of the width and distance I have to put my speakers too far apart.
> 
> There's no right answer to this dilemma, at least not for me. Especially given that Kontakt isn't ever going to get any easier to see.
> 
> With regard to changing the font size from 100% to something larger, I've encountered software that just plain doesn't work when this Windows setting is changed from the default. If I recall correctly, that includes some IK Multimedia programs.


Yup. I even tried using my two 4k monitors in portrait mode next to each other. It was okay, but I felt like i was sitting facing the patio door window. I have JBL4328p nearfield studio monitors, so they take up some room. If I try to sit closer to the monitor, then the speakers are covered. I have also tried setting them flat on the desk and then pitching to an angle like a touch monitor. That didnt really feel right. I would need much better monitor glass for that angle.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

pinki said:


> On Mac don’t you have to download developers tools to access Hdpi?



no not at all. How you get it working may depend on which video card you have, at some point I used a free little utility that enabled it, but then later on I think I got it working easily by using SwitchResX to set it up. The mode is always in there ready to use, but basically Apple only enables it from your display preferences if you are using an Apple branded Retina monitor. But there are ways to enable it with SwitchResX etc...so that with any monitor you can turn on HiDPI...but its better with a modern video card.

I think originally there was a little command line hack you could run that basically enabled it in the OS, hidden feature kind of thing.


----------



## Synetos (Aug 22, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> MacOSX generally handles HiDPI modes better because the entire Retina monitor line is using it. Windows has gotten better about it in recent years though.
> 
> For the ultra wide I doubt you have enough resolution to use scaling anyway. Ultrawide monitors don't have a tight enough pixel pitch, they have 4k or sometimes 5k worth of pixels spread out over a larger area. So basically they generally just need to work out for you at native resolution for the most part. If they aren't big enough fonts for the distance you will use them, then I would not recommend.


I love the mac monitors. I used to have one of the 30" cinema displays.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

All that Apple really did with their monitors is make them 5k, which means their native resolution is a really high PPI value. Their spec is that in order for a monitor to quality as "retina" it needs to be a high enough native resolution that for the typical viewing distance your eyes will not be able to see any distinct pixels. Your iPhone has to have a much higher PPI then your computer monitor in order to satisfy the "Retina" requirement because you hold it closer to your eyes. 

So any monitor that satisfies that requirement could be considered Retina, but of course Apple brands their own monitors...and basically only puts the OS into HiDPi modes easily if you are using one of theirs.

Apple monitors are virtually never run at native resolution, because 5k 27" monitor would be ridiculous tiny fonts with PPI like 150 or higher. to get to the virtual PPI around 105, they run HiDPI.. That's why their 5k 27" monitor is running at virtual resolution 2560x1440. but the 5k native makes all the curves, icons, and everything else smooth as silk...theoretically....you should not be able to see any jagged edges of pixels because they rated it as being "Retina" it means at a typical viewing distance the human eye can't even see the pixels.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

one more thing to note about HiDPI modes for anyone considering that......

Apple Retina (HiDPI) by default uses a virtual screen resolution that is exactly half the resolution of native. For example, they ship 5k monitors that are running at 2560x1440 virtual resolution. Because its exactly half the resolution, all pixel-math computes without (or minimal) division rounding errors. 

Other scalings will result in math rounding errors that can cause some artifacts. 

In my experience, true Retina mode is scary clear. But also at 2/3 scale, it looks scary good, i can barely detect any difference compared to full Retina HiDPI. As you get higher and higher scaled HiDPI resolutions, the math errors will increase and at some point you will decide its better to not use HiDPI anymore. Also, when you use a large HiDPI resolution, internally the operating system is actually painting all graphics onto a large internal canvas that is double the size of whatever you are viewing. For example, when I use 3200x1800hidpi, then internally OSX is rendering all graphics on a large canvas that is 6400x3200 in size. Theoretically that could impact performance, though I haven't noticed any problems, but the point is, when you get over a certain size of HiDPI resolution, you will not notice any improvement over simple scaled down resolutions...there will be just as much math rounding artifacts as you get from the normal non-HidPI way of scaling down...and you'll be using extra computer resources to do it.

So basically what I'm saying is... HiDpi scaling looks scary good at half the size of native. It looks incredible also at 2/3, and pretty darn good around 75% scale, but anything else then you should scale down without HiDPI probably. But try them all to see what works.


----------



## PaulieDC (Aug 22, 2020)

For a wannabe like me, it's my 8 year old Dell U3011 which is a 30" at 2560x1600. Cubase looks awesome on it, I don't need hi def (and I love my iPad Pro so it's not just being "used to" standard DPI). I also have a cheap 24" 1920x1080 on the side for mixers, Waves Plugins, YouTube instruction and watching the NY Rangers lose every game they've ever played.

HOWEVER, my wife got a 34" curved Dell wide screen at 3440x1440. I thought for SURE the curved thing would be weird. Boy was I wrong, as you turn your head your eyes stay at the same distance from the screen, and it's awesome. I have to have one (one day, lol). BUT, for us maniacs with 40 billion tracks in a DAW, the bigger https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1349058-REG/dell_u3818dw_ultrasharp_38_curved.html/?ap=y&smp=y&msclkid=f1b31d5a27a512dd6668421b929bb858 (Dell U3818DW) is 3840x1600 of curved visual bliss. I even set my near-fields wider for that happy day when I can swing it (88-key comes first). I will still keep the 24" cheapo off to the side.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

The monitor in this steinberg ad is the one I am lusting after right now:











I believe this is the unit:









LG 49WL95C-W 49 Inch 32:9 UltraWide Dual QHD IPS Curved LED Monitor with HDR 10 (49WL95C-W) | LG USA


Get information on the LG 49WL95C-W 49 Inch 32:9 UltraWide Dual QHD IPS Curved LED Monitor with HDR 10 (49WL95C-W). Find pictures, reviews, and tech specs.




www.lg.com





49", 5120x1440 resolution (ie 5k)...with ppi = 109ppi though, which is a little concerning since it would have to pretty much run at native resolution, no HiDPI.

what would really work for me would be the above monitor but in around a 52" ultra wide size...same resolution. That would end up around 105ppi at native resolution with 5k of virtual desktop space to work with and lower height then my current 32". I feel the above one would be a little bit hard for the eyes unless you have it well within 3 feet viewing...it would be fine for using DAW's, but not for reading text and fonts, etc. IMHO.

But that is the one to get.

The smaller ultra-wides that are like 34 and 38 inches I definitely think would be too small. Note that they are typically 4k resolution and also have high ppi around 109ppi..which means you have to be close to it to read well.

They are design more for gaming and watching movies where font size is irrelevant.

So in my view for real desktop use, these ultra wides need to be something like 42" in 4k or 52" in 5k to be truly ideal for desktop use at 3 feet away from the face, which is common with DAW use, or even 4 feet...the fonts will be too small otherwise.

Either that or else a 49" ultra wide running 6k native resolution would also work, then we could use HiDPI modes to get big enough fonts. Unfortunately, video card tech is not up for 6k native resolutions realistically yet.

A 38" ultra wide at 5k would probably work well, running at 3840x1440hidpi with big enough fonts. I'd buy one of those if they came out with it.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

So the TV viewing distance calculator is slightly different thing. it does not take into account the most desirable font size zone in how operating systems are typically designed. It is basically taking into account how high resolution you need at various distances to not see any pixelation.

So that PPI is different then the one I have been talking bout. That is the NATIVE ppi of the monitor...and that shows how far away you need to be from any given TV at whatever resolution it is, to not be able to see any pixels.

But in terms of being able to read fonts, the Operating systems have designed them with font sizes what they are...which means...at 2 feet viewing you want to be closer to 105ppi VIRTUAL resolution, regardless of the pixelation, to be able to read the fonts without squinting.

Any larger number will become increasingly squinty and lower values will seem too big and wasting real estate.

Further away then 2 feet will require a lower virtual PPi in order to read the fonts... and its a range. 100-110 virtual PPI is probably the zone for typical desktop usage.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

Basically a "perfect" monitor would satisfy both requirements. It would have high enough native PPI so that you can't see any pixels from your viewing distance, while also getting big enough fonts from the OS to be able to read them easily.

The tv viewing calculator gives you the minimum native PPI you want to not see pixels...but then you gotta factor in that you need the virtual PPI to be small enough to read the fonts.. its coming from opposite directions and the perfect monitor would sit right in the middle and satisfy both things. Sadly, a lot of them seem to compromise one way or the other.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 22, 2020)

Babaghanoush said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I definately would take the optimal viewing distance with a grain of salt.



The TV one is actually based on science. its similar as the Apple Retina standard. The human eye has physical limitations that are surprisingly consistent between people, so basically for any given resolution, you can't see the pixels past a certain distance. That's why, for example, it doesn't really make sense to get a 4k netflix subscription to watch on your 60 inch 4k TV from 10 feet away. You won't see any difference compared to 720p because at that distance your eye can't even see the pixels anyway.

That chart is basically just showing you, for whatever distance you will be watching movies...what resolution do you need to not see any pixels...

Very scientific and very useful..

Its just that unfortunately the operating systems of our computer are based on assumptions about what font sizes should be and various things like that..under the assumption of around 100ppi from 2 feet away. So if you try to use larger resolutions from 2 feet, you might not see any pixels, but everything will just look too small because all the software and operating system was designed around an assumption of a typical viewing distance and virtual PPI around 105.


----------



## PaulieDC (Aug 22, 2020)

Dewdman42 said:


> The monitor in this steinberg ad is the one I am lusting after right now:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WHOA! Ginormous! Forget composing, I need that for Flight Sim 2020!


----------



## Synetos (Aug 23, 2020)

PaulieDC said:


> WHOA! Ginormous! Forget composing, I need that for Flight Sim 2020!


That wide curved gaming monitor is just like what my son has on order. 
I am kinda lusting after 2 of them stacked. But, they are like $1700 each.


----------

