# Going from a 34" DAW monitor to a 43" monitor - Any opinions?



## quantum7 (Aug 3, 2018)

I'm thinking of buying a 43" monitor to replace my 34" monitor on my DAW. My 49 year old eyes could always use more help, and I thought it would be nice to have extra GUI space if needed. I'm curious if anyone else has gone up to a similar size and had any pros and cons they would like to enlighten me with.


----------



## Prockamanisc (Aug 3, 2018)

DOOOO ITTTTT!!! It's easily the biggest improvement I've made in a long time. I'm on a Mac and I choose a size that isn't quite 4K, so that way it's a good balance between real estate and legibility. I got the LG 43ud79.


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 3, 2018)

Hi quantum7,

During March this year, I replaced my two Dell 23" flat monitors, with one Dell 38" Ultra Sharp Curved Monitor. It was one of the best improvements I did to my studio. Having the curved design is a big + , a 43" Flat monitor would have been too big, and not ideal for my setup. So, don't overlook the curved monitor option. They make it much more comfy to see the whole screen compared to a very large flat screen monitor.

Cheers & Good luck,
Muziksculp


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 3, 2018)

Thanks fellas! Yes, curved is also on the table. I'll make up my mind by tomorrow when I order all my new DAW build parts......which is all costing me a pretty penny! I've just put my Modal Electronics 008 for sale just to offset the costs.


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 3, 2018)

Looking at this one:


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Aug 3, 2018)

my issue with curved monitors is with CAD and graphics - not an option.

but for audio, lovely.


----------



## R. Soul (Aug 4, 2018)

Prockamanisc said:


> DOOOO ITTTTT!!! It's easily the biggest improvement I've made in a long time. I'm on a Mac and I choose a size that isn't quite 4K, so that way it's a good balance between real estate and legibility. I got the LG 43ud79.


I had the LG monitor for a little while. Couldn't get on with it, it was simply too huge. I felt I almost had to stand up to see the top of the monitor. I much prefer my current 32" + a secondary monitor.

But if you already have a 34" (ultra wide?) quantum7 then I guess you have a good idea of what to expect.


----------



## charlieclouser (Aug 4, 2018)

I use a Samsung 32 inch 4k, which is 3840 x 2160. Most curved displays have far fewer pixels - the biggest I've found does have 3840 horizontal, but only 1080 vertical, so that will only display half as many tracks in the vertical dimension as a true 4k display. At first it might look like you're seeing a huge amount of horizontal space, but in reality it's no more than a 4k display. Some curved displays have as many as 1440 vertical pixels, but still - that's a lot less than a 4k display. I like the sexy futuristic look of the curved displays, but I want to see as many tracks as possible.

I tried the LG 43 inch 4k display after seeing it at a friend's studio, but in my setup it had to sit too close, and I required too much head-swiveling to see the upper corners and far sides. If you've got your display mounted above a console, large control surface, or other stuff, it might work for you - but all I have is the music keyboard, computer keyboard, and about eight inches of control surface stuff between me and the displays. So that LG 43 incher was just too much display, too close, so that's something to keep in mind.


----------



## Symfoniq (Aug 4, 2018)

charlieclouser said:


> I use a Samsung 32 inch 4k, which is 3840 x 2160. Most curved displays have far fewer pixels - the biggest I've found does have 3840 horizontal, but only 1080 vertical, so that will only display half as many tracks in the vertical dimension as a true 4k display. At first it might look like you're seeing a huge amount of horizontal space, but in reality it's no more than a 4k display. Some curved displays have as many as 1440 vertical pixels, but still - that's a lot less than a 4k display. I like the sexy futuristic look of the curved displays, but I want to see as many tracks as possible.
> 
> I tried the LG 43 inch 4k display after seeing it at a friend's studio, but in my setup it had to sit too close, and I required too much head-swiveling to see the upper corners and far sides. If you've got your display mounted above a console, large control surface, or other stuff, it might work for you - but all I have is the music keyboard, computer keyboard, and about eight inches of control surface stuff between me and the displays. So that LG 43 incher was just too much display, too close, so that's something to keep in mind.



The Dell 3818 is 1600 pixels vertical. At 3840 on the horizontal, it’s very close to 4K, but without needing any scaling. I find that 32” 4K monitors are still a bit small for me to use without UI scaling, which eliminates the benefit of the extra vertical pixels. But you probably have better eyes than I do.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Aug 4, 2018)

I've got a 38" curved monitor, and a 28" one on top of that for video, or other purposes. It's perfect.

43" might be okay, but there is a limit to what works well ergonomically. If you have to constantly move your head to see things (especially, too much time looking up), you're putting strain on your neck. Not a good thing for long-term work.

I've known people who have gone with really huge monitors (large TV screen size). It's a big mistake.

BTW, if you need to mount multiple monitors (like I did), check out the Chief monitor stands (B&H has them). Lots of configurations, and they're rock solid.


----------



## Will Blackburn (Aug 4, 2018)

Don't replace it go dual monitor. Think my main screen is 47 and then I have smaller pc monitor below (in profile pic). I would if I could put another 47 above the main but my mobo only does dual. Couldn't live without the big screen


----------



## shawnsingh (Aug 4, 2018)

I use a 55" 4k TV as my daily computer monitor, but sit a little bit further away, probably about 1.2-1.5 meters between me and the screen. From this distance, I don't feel I have to swivel my head much - a little bit, but really not a bother at all. I did this to reduce eye strain, which is primarily caused by constantly focusing on something too close to your eyes.

If anyone is interested in trying this, here are my recommendations:

Make sure to get a direct led backlight. Edge lit displays will not have uniform lighting across the display and it looks bad for computer usage that has lots of solid backgrounds
60 fps + 4:4:4 color. (For 4k, that will require HDMI 2.0). 60fps is minimum for comfortable usage when feedback is involved, like using a mouse. 4:4:4 means colors are not reduced in resolution, otherwise you get bad looking color fringing on small text.
A video card that also supports the same as above (I know at least most recent Nvidia cards should) and a cable rated for HDMI 2.0
Turn off any image sharpening features on your TV, they are not needed for sharp image and actually make the image terribly bad for computer usage
I personally compromised on the 4:4:4, since I could get a 4k tv 4 years ago that had all these requirements. These days it might be possible. The 4:2:0 reduced color resolution doesn't bother me because most of the time I've zoomed text to one level larger and it still looks great.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Aug 4, 2018)

Good article on why not to use a TV as a computer monitor...

https://www.pcrichard.com/library/b...o-use-a-tv-as-a-computer-monitor/1100947.pcra


----------



## sostenuto (Aug 4, 2018)

Different strokes …. Have tried 55" 3480 x 2160 w/ Reaper and dislike everything on ONE screen. Optimal viewing distance ~ 4-5 ft. 

Using: (2) Win10 Pro PC DAW(s) with dual monitors.
Primary: dual 24" 1920 x 1200; Secondary: dual 27" 1920 x 1080. 

1920 x 1200 seems best.


----------



## shawnsingh (Aug 4, 2018)

Lee Blaske said:


> Good article on why not to use a TV as a computer monitor...
> 
> https://www.pcrichard.com/library/b...o-use-a-tv-as-a-computer-monitor/1100947.pcra



I think reason 1 only applies for people who haven't specifically made sure their computer has HDMI out already. Also some tvs these days support displayport. Reason 3, I agree with not sitting to close, but anyone willing to adjust their desk setup a bit can manage to sit a little further back. Reason 2 about lag... It's not really that bad unless you're gaming, even then I've barely noticed.

On the other hand, the reduction to eye strain had been a very positive thing for me. It's definitely a niche solution that won't work for everyone and takes some research and possible churn through tvs and video cards, i'd still encourage people to consider it


----------



## Lee Blaske (Aug 4, 2018)

BTW, just generally talking about monitors, I made a HUGE discovery when I redid my set-up last year. For quite a number of years, I had two 27" monitors side by side, with an additional 24" above them (for video, and things that didn't need quite as much attention). Changing to a single 38" curved Acer on the lower level was an ENORMOUS improvement. With the two side by side monitors, I was consistently either looking to the right or to the left (and more often looking to the right, because that's where my main Logic DAW window was). Now, I look at the center of the display most of the time. It's enormously less fatiguing. I wish I would have discovered that earlier.


----------



## charlieclouser (Aug 4, 2018)

Symfoniq said:


> The Dell 3818 is 1600 pixels vertical. At 3840 on the horizontal, it’s very close to 4K, but without needing any scaling. I find that 32” 4K monitors are still a bit small for me to use without UI scaling, which eliminates the benefit of the extra vertical pixels. But you probably have better eyes than I do.



Ooh, I do like that Dell. I had seen a similar giant curved display (39 inch Samsung I think?) that was only 1440 vertical, but that Dell is near enough to 4k that I might have to give it a look. I agree that a 32 inch 4k has a very small dot pitch and really only works without scaling if you sit very close.

I use three displays - left one for ProTools, center and right for Logic. Imagine how cool three of those Dells would look! MOTU uses three curved displays in their NAMM booth setup and it looks really clean and very futuristic.

Also, I totally agree that using two displays side-by-side is a huge pain in the neck. One or three or five, but never two or four. It's so much better when one of them is dead center. Been doing it that way since the CRT era in the 1990's (see pic attached).


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 4, 2018)

charlieclouser said:


> Ooh, I do like that Dell. I had seen a similar giant curved display (39 inch Samsung I think?) that was only 1440 vertical, but that Dell is near enough to 4k that I might have to give it a look. I agree that a 32 inch 4k has a very small dot pitch and really only works without scaling if you sit very close.
> 
> I use three displays - left one for ProTools, center and right for Logic. Imagine how cool three of those Dells would look! MOTU uses three curved displays in their NAMM booth setup and it looks really clean and very futuristic.
> 
> Also, I totally agree that using two displays side-by-side is a huge pain in the neck. One or three or five, but never two or four. It's so much better when one of them is dead center. Been doing it that way since the CRT era in the 1990's (see pic attached).



One, three or five. Absolutely. Two screens is a pain no matter what the size.

I am using a 43 inch 4 k screen as my main (2 x 27 inch either side) and it is too large. But I’m now used to it and used to awkwardness it brings. I do love it. It’s very much like how Jack White sets his Keyboards at one extra inch from comfort to make him “work harder”. Glutton for punishment but sure is amazing to be able to see the verticality when a track grows out of control.


----------



## charlieclouser (Aug 4, 2018)

Look how sexy three curved displays looks:


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 4, 2018)

I am liking this. Look how tiny the keyboard is ! Haha!


----------



## benmrx (Aug 4, 2018)

charlieclouser said:


> Look how sexy three curved displays looks:


Sexy, yes...., but man you would need to keep your head on a swivel! And imagine dragging your mouse from the far left to the far right. It looks rad, futuristic, and slick..., but quickeys seems...., quicker.


----------



## jononotbono (Aug 4, 2018)

benmrx said:


> Sexy, yes...., but man you would need to keep your head on a swivel! And imagine dragging your mouse from the far left to the far right. It looks rad, futuristic, and slick..., but quickeys seems...., quicker.



You just hire two assistants. They both sit either side and their sole purpose is to inform what is visually happening from left and right.


----------



## dgburns (Aug 4, 2018)

charlieclouser said:


> Look how sexy three curved displays looks:



Yeah but I always find I need more height and less left to right. But that’s just me.


----------



## benmrx (Aug 4, 2018)

jononotbono said:


> You just hire two assistants. They both sit either side and their sole purpose is to inform what is visually happening from left and right.


Haha. Obviously. 

I’ve gone back to just two monitors. One for the DAW, and one for the video. I use a little onscreen menu I bring up with a button I programmed on my trackball and select what window/mixer/editor I want to see. 

No longer twisting my head around, and the setup feels cleaner/more streamlined. 

That said, I would like to setup a 3rd monitor whose sole function is to display an LUFS meter at all times. Or what I REALLY want is to snag one of these: 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1283184-REG/tc_electronic_clarity_m_stereo_and_5_1_audio.html?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIs7-RgrPU3AIVy7fACh0BmQVQEAQYASABEgKhsvD_BwE&smp=y


----------



## shawnsingh (Aug 4, 2018)

Another option for people to consider - an alternate to multiple monitors is to have multiple virtual desktops. I think Mac and Windows 10 can both do that. At workplace with Linux, I like virtual desktops more than multiple monitors. If you have to swivel your head to see another monitor, using some keyboard shortcuts to switch desktops isn't much slower at all, and you can get one central larger screen instead. Unfortunately I think windows 7 doesn't support that feature natively.


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 4, 2018)

charlieclouser said:


> Look how sexy three curved displays looks:


 I'd have a hell of a time PROPERLY placing my sound monitors in there. D'oh!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 4, 2018)

I’d be curious to hear a bit more about dot pitch and sitting distance from the monitor. I am of the opinion right now that 32” 4K needs to 1-2 feet from my face without scaling. I’m thinking about a 43 inch 4K that would be 3 feet from my face. It seems to me that the dots per inch or whatever it’s called, needs to be in the 90-100 range for 3 feet viewing distance. 

As the screen is moved closer then more dots per inch are ok. Everything will be smaller. 

I think the planned viewing distance is a critical factor when considering these options.

What is the dots per inch density on these curved displays? 

I think at 3 feet away I need to either get 43 inch 4K or 32 inch 2k. I’m not sure which curved display would have similar density for for that viewing distance


----------



## wcreed51 (Aug 4, 2018)

I'm 2ft away from my 40" 4k. I have glasses tuned to that distance, which is also the distance to music sitting at my piano.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 5, 2018)

Hmm you’re making me wonder if I should try to arrange my viewing distance the same as the piano in order to use the same glasses. I’m not sure I can get the daw screen that close though. Plus I am really wondering about all the head turning and looking up and down to take it all in from that close at 43”


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Aug 5, 2018)

I just went to 43" 4K (from two 23" 1050x1600 monitors) and it's glorious. I do have to move my head to look at the corners, but it doesn't hurt my feelings.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 6, 2018)

Viewing distance?


----------



## jacobthestupendous (Aug 7, 2018)

Typically around 30".


----------



## Symfoniq (Aug 7, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> What is the dots per inch density on these curved displays?



My Dell 3818 is about 110 PPi.


----------



## Symfoniq (Aug 7, 2018)

FWIW I’ve found this PPI calculator to be useful: https://www.sven.de/dpi/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 8, 2018)

Can't you just look at the 34" monitor in a mirror to make it 43"?


----------



## quantum7 (Aug 8, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Can't you just look at the 34" monitor in a mirror to make it 43"?



Whoa! That would save me a lot of money also!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 8, 2018)

My old DELL 24 inch 1920x1200 is about 95ppi and I think personally that is about the right resolution if the screen is more then two feet away from my face, it feels slightly too big when sitting 2 feet away or less, but still very usable...I think that 95ppi would work in the 2-4 foot viewing distance, without scaling. Much further away and I think I'd have trouble reading some type.

With 4K and PPI over 100, I feel that the screen is of course sharper and more "retina-like", but everything is smaller. Large things like track layouts may look fine far away at that resolution but reading some fonts could be a problem from more than about 2 feet away I think. 110ppi is not nearly as small as some others. 32" 4k monitors are closer to 140ppi, which clearly needs to be closer to the face. 

The Dell 3818, at 110ppi sounds like a nice curved display if you can keep the screen within 2 feet of your face, if it gets out to 3 or 4 feet, seems to me would cause some eye squinting and/or leaning forward to read stuff, and at two feet away, I think you'd be turning your head a lot to see either end.

Likewise, I believe a lot of the 43 inch 4k displays are actually closer to around 100ppi, which will be just a little smaller then my old Dell monitor, probably perfect around 3 feet away. Closer then that and everything will look big and you'll be turning your head a lot up and down and side to side to take it all in, so 43" I think really should be 3+ feet out, though personally I think beyond about 4 feet, I would personally find it difficult to read some text most likely without scaling.

All the smaller 4k monitors, like 32", etc.. have ridiculously high ppi's, which will only work if the monitor is right there close, which is quite often not the case for DAW work as such. I think a 32" 2k monitor would not be a bad way to go, that would be similar to the old Apple Cinema Display, except a little less ppi and can sit in that 3-4 ft viewing range or closer, and not bad head turning.

These are just my thoughts...I would like to hear more from others, but my thoughts are:

1-2 feet viewing distance, ppi can be as high as you can get, why not.
2-3 feet viewing distance, around 110ppi or less
3-4 feet viewing distance, around 100ppi or less
4+ feet, 90ppi or less

Something around that...but I would like to hear more from people about what they are actually using at what viewing distance, and how much head turning they have to do at that distance. When your 43" monitor is 4 feet away, then the head doesn't have to turn that much to look at the corners of the screen, as compared to if its 2 feet away. At 100ppi, from 4 feet viewing distance, the question is how much squinting or leaning forward occurs to read stuff, especially finer text. etc.. 

Its like we need to consider a few different factors, resolution of course, the more desktop space the better; but how much you need to to tilt or turn your head, definitely matters in terms of ergonomics...so the bigger it is, the further away you better be. Meanwhile the ppi needs to be small enough to support that viewing distance.


----------



## JJP (Aug 8, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Can't you just look at the 34" monitor in a mirror to make it 43"?



You must remember to invert your mouse so that it works correctly when looking in the mirror.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2018)

Somewhat OT, sorry-

I don’t have a lot of choice about how far away my I-inc monitor sits because of my space-it’s pretty close. I have some fairly serious problems with glare and visual distortions (jagged lightning bolt looking thingies) that seem to bloom into migraines. I’ve been checked out medically and I’m ok, but is anyone using glare filters on their monitors or coated glasses to reduce glare? Thanks.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 9, 2018)

is your screen a matte finish or glossy finish (like Apple likes to make now)?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2018)

Don’t really know! Matte, I think.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 9, 2018)

what do you mean by "glare"?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2018)

Essentially, I think that staring at screens constantly is giving my eyes fits. I’ve brought down the brightness on all of my devices but I still get some visual distortions after a lot of intense MIDI work, especially where I find myself leaning in.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 9, 2018)

Right. I know what you mean. Make sure you have a high refresh rate happening. I find that lower refresh rates cause my neural circuits to get all jacked up after too much time. at least 60hz.

But eye squinting could be causing it too...if you strain to see small type, or have to lean in, as you say, then probably you are straining the eye muscles, which ultimately leads to fatigue. 

This is why I'm asking everyone to clarify the viewing distance when they talk about the size and resolution they are using. My thoughts are that a lot of people do not have the optimal setup for the viewing distance they are at.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2018)

Larry, I wonder whether you need sunglasses, or colored ones, or something that filters something that's bothering you.

I have no idea what it is, but you'd think an opthalmologist could get to the bottom of whatever sensitivity you have.

Of course, it could also be your monitor. I haven't posted about it, but (in addition to other complaints) I had some kind of very minor eye strain at the edge of my consciousness when I experimented with a 4K TV for a week. That doesn't happen with my over 12-year-old 30" Cinema Display.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 9, 2018)

Nick, can you please describe exactly your setup with the 4K TV? which TV was it? viewing distance? what your biggest problem was?

I am waffling back and forth right now between either getting a 32" 2K screen (which is essentially about the same as cinema display), or if I want to go 4K, then I feel that the screen would need to be 43" in order to basically have close to the same ppi as the cinema display. I could actually use my existing video card with a 2K screen, and those are a lot cheaper. So there is that.. If I go to 4K I will have to get new video card, in addition to a more expensive monitor...and...I'm not sure whether I'm down for 43" screen or not...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2018)

Dewdman, it's a Samsung UN40KU6290D 40" monitor I bought at Costco. I have a 5,1 Mac Pro, and I bought (later returned) a Gigabyte Radeon RX450 card to drive the 40" at 4K/60Hz.

Yes, 43" is the same dot pitch as the Cinema, and 40" is close enough to 43".

I had the Samsung in the same position as I have the 30" Cinema Display: between 18" and 2' from my nose, depending on whether I'm leaning back (as I normally do) or sitting up.

My problem with that Samsung replacing the Cinema Display was that the screen is too big. I didn't like turning my head as much to see the sides of the monitor. The other issue is that this monitor isn't really a computer display, and I could see some color fuzziness around text. But the main thing was the size - the thing is too big for me.

Now I have the Samsung 5' away, where I use it as a TV and sometimes as a second monitor at 1080p. It's useful for parking open plug-ins.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> Nick, can you please describe exactly your setup with the 4K TV? which TV was it? viewing distance? what your biggest problem was?



I should add that I didn't have the kind of problem NYC Composer is describing at all, I was just saying that I understand how some people could have sensitivities to some monitors.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 10, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Dewdman, it's a Samsung UN40KU6290D 40" monitor I bought at Costco. I have a 5,1 Mac Pro, and I bought (later returned) a Gigabyte Radeon RX450 card to drive the 40" at 4K/60Hz.
> 
> Yes, 43" is the same dot pitch as the Cinema, and 40" is close enough to 43".



Thanks for clarifying!



> I had the Samsung in the same position as I have the 30" Cinema Display: between 18" and 2' from my nose, depending on whether I'm leaning back (as I normally do) or sitting up.
> 
> My problem with that Samsung replacing the Cinema Display was that the screen is too big. I didn't like turning my head as much to see the sides of the monitor. The other issue is that this monitor isn't really a computer display, and I could see some color fuzziness around text. But the main thing was the size - the thing is too big for me.



So basically I have a couple take-aways from this observation. 

One is that the lower ppi values will work at closer viewing distances as well as further away. albeit lower resolution.

Another is that the 30" cinema display is a nice compromise, it can work from 3-4 feet away because of the low ppi, but it can also be closer and still not cause too much head turning. The downside is that its only 2k resolution. 

I suspect that at 18-24 inch viewing distance, a 4k 32inch monitor would probably work well also, giving the higher resolution, but would not work well at 3-4 feet away.

The 40" monitor you were using may or may not have been the best model for computer use, since you noted some fuzziness and I think some other monitors have gotten much better reviews in terms of image quality for computer use. Anyone considering a flat panel TV as a monitor needs to do their homework to make sure that it has the right specs for computer use also.

Anything larger then 30 inches probably needs to be further away to avoid all the head turning. I am still wondering how far away a 43 inch monitor needs to be to really bring head turning down to being no more then would happen with say a cinema display at 18-24 inches away.

You say you are now using the 40" at 5 feet away as a secondary monitor for some secondary things like plugin windows and such, which is a nice way to use it! How is it at the distance in terms of head turning? How is it in terms of being able to read smaller fonts and such from 5 feet out? Again, I'm presuming that your 40" TV may not have been the best model for computer use, so I kind of expect you say that its a bit fuzzy for reading fonts, but at 5 feet its comfortable to use in terms of head turning. I wonder how you would perceive the head turning at 4 feet?


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 10, 2018)

Funny, one doesn't normally think of a "head turner" as being a bad quality; yet here, we have an exception to the rule.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> One is that the lower ppi values will work at closer viewing distances as well as further away. albeit lower resolution.
> 
> Another is that the 30" cinema display is a nice compromise, it can work from 3-4 feet away because of the low ppi, but it can also be closer and still not cause too much head turning. The downside is that its only 2k resolution.



Not sure I'd call 2K resolution a compromise! 30" 2560x1600 is a standard computer monitor - but a big one. Until recently it was the biggest anyone used, and it still feels pretty luxurious.

Any standard computer monitor 3-4' away would be too far for me, and I have good eyes.




> I suspect that at 18-24 inch viewing distance, a 4k 32inch monitor would probably work well also, giving the higher resolution, but would not work well at 3-4 feet away.



It's pretty small, but it should work as long as you can change the res when you need to. I think I mentioned the 28" Samsung computer monitor Costco sells or was selling.



> The 40" monitor you were using may or may not have been the best model for computer use, since you noted some fuzziness and I think some other monitors have gotten much better reviews in terms of image quality for computer use. Anyone considering a flat panel TV as a monitor needs to do their homework to make sure that it has the right specs for computer use also.



Indubitously. It was just an experiment.



> Anything larger then 30 inches probably needs to be further away to avoid all the head turning. I am still wondering how far away a 43 inch monitor needs to be to really bring head turning down to being no more then would happen with say a cinema display at 18-24 inches away.



Well, many people aren't bothered by the head-turning on a larger 4K TV, so it's going to be subjective.

But as I sorta said, you'd have to have eagle eyes to work on a standard computer monitor from much more of a distance.



> You say you are now using the 40" at 5 feet away as a secondary monitor for some secondary things like plugin windows and such, which is a nice way to use it! How is it at the distance in terms of head turning? How is it in terms of being able to read smaller fonts and such from 5 feet out? Again, I'm presuming that your 40" TV may not have been the best model for computer use, so I kind of expect you say that its a bit fuzzy for reading fonts, but at 5 feet its comfortable to use in terms of head turning. I wonder how you would perceive the head turning at 4 feet?



No head turning, no fuzzy fonts, but I run it at 1080p - a much larger picture with far less real estate on a large screen.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2018)

I was going to post a picture of the two screens from where I sit, but wouldn't you know it - my DVI-HDMI adapter seems to have been screwed up by some jackass bumping into it in my garage....


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 10, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not sure I'd call 2K resolution a compromise! 30" 2560x1600 is a standard computer monitor - but a big one. Until recently it was the biggest anyone used, and it still feels pretty luxurious.



hehe, I agree, it would be an upgrade for me at this point, but nonetheless, it is a compromise compared to all the 4k monitors that now seem to be becoming more of the standard in terms of screen real estate.

The main point is this, if you get a 32" 4k monitor, it has to be close to your face, you have no option to be further without scaling it. If you get a 43" 4k monitor it subjectively has to be further away in order to avoid head turning, and its not clear to me right now what reading smaller fonts on a 4k 43" from 4 feet away would be like.

In contrast to that, the 2k cinema display (or a current 32" 2k monitor), basically sits halfway between those two extremes. Less resolution (the compromise), but you can certainly use it closer without head turning, and I think it could be used from 3-4 feet because my old monitor is about the same ppi as that, and I can definitely use it from 3 feet without issue. But I guess that depends on your eyes and desktop needs. My DAW station needs 3 feet minimum for now. But anyway, the point is, this size and resolution is useful from both close and medium viewing distances...without causing too much head turning. It may be just the right size... In my view (for now) its either this, or a 4k 43" at 3-4 feet out.



> Well, many people aren't bothered by the head-turning on a larger 4K TV, so it's going to be subjective.


True. Nonetheless we still need to identify head turning as a compromise for larger screens at close distance and if possible figure out what minimum distance is required for any given screen size to avoid that.

One of the reasons people are also interesting in the wide curved displays is because they don't like looking up and town, which is actually hard on the neck as well. They don't mind turning side to side, apparently. So the distance needed to avoid that on 43" is interesting to know. If I get a 43", it will sit as low on my desk as possible, but still I think it will need to be 3-4 feet away.


----------



## JPQ (Aug 10, 2018)

Makes me wonder how i solve things later when is hard get smaller displays and in small room (what very likely have when i get older have) and smaller displays in resolution which is still easy read i mean. these dispaly things are very hard. and i want use my current one long as possible becouse i have very old hardware which needs vga input and also money income reasons.


----------



## muziksculp (Aug 10, 2018)

Why is this topic in the 'Sample Talk' Section ?


----------



## LandWaterSky (Aug 10, 2018)

I sit an average of 3 to 3.5 feet from my monitors.

I currently run both a 43-Inch 4K ViewSonic VX4380 Flat Screen Monitor (16:9 aspect ratio) along with a Samsung 34-Inch CF791 Curved Widescreen Monitor (21:9 aspect ratio).

I like the 43-Inch ViewSonic when I’m working on a project where I need a more centered view of open apps and windows. I prefer the Samsung curved screen when I need a lot of faders.

Even with these nice monitors, due to my increasingly poor eyesight, I find myself struggling more and more to read the ridiculously tiny text on so many VI interfaces (hello Native Instruments) as well as notation on manuscripts.

Not only is this a constant buzz kill when I’m trying to compose, it’s actually disruptive to my workflow. So, I’m alway on the lookout for a monitor that provides more real estate with higher resolution.

To that end I recently read that Samsung will be releasing several new ultra-wide screen monitors with greatly increased resolution (49, 43.4, 34 and 31.5 Inch models). Their new 49-Inch curved screen monitor is said to have a resolution of 5,120 x 1,440 pixels – a major improvement over their current 49-Inch monitors which run at a resolution of 3,840 x 1,080.

The 32:9 aspect ratio of these ultra-wide monitors may not be to everyone’s liking but I think I could put up with a more horizontal screen space if the resolution was there.

No word on if or when these new monitors are slated for release.

Here’s the article I’m referencing:

https://www.techradar.com/news/sams...s-up-the-resolution-for-ultra-wide-perfection


----------



## Geoff Grace (Aug 10, 2018)

For Mac users who only occasionally have difficulty seeing/reading things on their screen, this is worth a look:

How to use Zoom on Mac

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> My DAW station needs 3 feet minimum for now.



Would a monitor arm that floats the screen wherever you want it work for you?

These are much less expensive on ebay, but you get the idea:

http://www.innovativeessentials.com/lcd-monitor-arms-and-mounts-lcd-monitor-arms-c-23_26.html


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 10, 2018)

maybe. not with a 43 inch monitor though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2018)

Actually, my 40" Samsung and 30" Cinema Display weigh about the same with their stands removed!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 10, 2018)

we're getting onto a new tangent, there are numerous reasons why a movable monitor, especially a large one, may or may not be what I could work with. It could always something interesting to consider after taking into consideration the various factors in terms of resolution, PPI and viewing distance. I'd rather attempt to get that right to begin with or at least have a complete understanding of what the viewing needs will be before spending money. Perhaps a swing arm could come into the final decision.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 10, 2018)

right now I'm actually trying to decide between a 2k 32 inch monitor (which would be very similar to your cinema display) or a 43" 4K. 

The 2k display would be a few hundred bucks, but the 4k display would require a new video card in addition to a much more expensive monitor...so probably close to $1000. Might be worth it, or might not.. 

Nice thing about the 2k monitor is that I could use it close or far and there is a lot of wiggle room there for once it gets here. I feel that if I make the more expensive leap to 4k 43", then I have to use it 3 feet away, maybe 4, which is fine, my desk supports that, but its still not clear to me how much head turning will be required with 43" screen at 3 or 4 feet. And its not entirely clear to me how hard it will be to read small type from 3-4 feet on one of those. A smaller 4k screen would only work close to my face and would absolutely require a swing arm on my desk, but I don't know whether I would like that the screen might just be getting more in the way that way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 11, 2018)

You can tell how hard it'll be to read the text at 3 - 4' by moving a standard monitor that far back. I wouldn't want to do that.

My impression is that .25 DPI is close to reality, i.e. the same size as an actual printout.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 11, 2018)

My 24 inch Dell 2407 monitor at 1920x1200 is 94 dpi. (.27 dot pitch)

At that resolution I feel what I see on the screen is slightly larger then when its printed out. I can comfortable read my email and spreadsheets and other small type; and what not from 3 feet away. I testing it right now at 3 feet and comfortable reading a spreadsheet with 10pt fonts.

I agree at 4 feet then I can still read stuff, but its not quite "comfortable" for smaller fonts.

For comparison, your 30" Apple Cinema display is 100ppi, or .25 dot pitch...and I can see why you may be squinting a bit more then I am at 3 feet away, definitely at 4ft.

If I were to get a 32inch 2k Monitor, that would be the same resolution as your cinema display, but slightly bigger form factor: 94 ppi (.27 dot pitch), I would expect similar results as my current Dell in terms of viewing distance.

My take away from this is that if I want to have any monitor at 3 feet away, it better be no greater than 100ppi, and possibly needs to be 95ish. I don't have a 100ppi monitor to test at 3 feet, I hear you are saying its not usable at that distance, so we have that data point. At 4 feet and greater, the PPI needs to go down even more in order to be able to read everything.

Most of the 43" 4k monitors at 100ppi. That's sad news..which means I am not at all sure whether I would be able to use it at 3 feet, based on your feedback.

It very well may be that the best compromise is 32" 2k monitor at around 3 feet maybe even 4. For 4k, I guess for 3 feet away an ideal monitor would be 46.5" monitor...doesn't exist. 

Its an interesting dilemma between avoiding head turning and being big enough to see it from the distance needed to avoid head turning.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 11, 2018)

This is an interesting calculator as well, which is related more to TV, not fonts and computer monitor use, but still interesting: https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator

I'm running a bunch of tests now using my laptop (which has higher PPI) and trying different distances, trying to come up with a formula...the engineer in me can't help it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 11, 2018)

Dewdman42 said:


> Most of the 43" 4k monitors at 100ppi



Really? My 40" @ 4K is very close to .25 - the difference is vanishingly small.

And I can read text on the 30" from 3' away, but I wouldn't want to work that way all day long. Half that is about right for writing (prose).


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 11, 2018)

Alright, I ran a bunch of configurations through the calculators, and tested some with the two monitors I have, assuming my eye sight is 20/20 with my glasses on. Generally, everyone is saying your monitor should be AT LEAST 20 inches from your eyes, not closer then that. If its closer then get some glasses or make everything bigger, but for various ergonomic reasons, you should have the monitor 20" minimum from your eyes.

So the question remains, with these various different monitor sizes and pixel densities, what is the optimal viewing range, factoring in several considerations:

At what minimum distance will the eyes be able to take in the complete width of the monitor. Field of Vision (FOV), assume nothing less then 20 inches regardless
At what distance will eyes stop seeing pixelization? This is called the Visual Accuity distance. You can be closer then this distance (_providing you're no closer then the FOV distance and no closer then 20 inches_) and still read everything, you'll just notice some jaggies.
You can usually sit a little further then Visual Accuity distance also and still read the fonts until they are small enough that some eye strain will start to occur. In the testing I just did using as many configurations as possible with my two computers, I think 6-12 inches beyond visual acuity is about as far as I would want to go. its possible to be a little further, but I start to feel subtle eye strain happening with small fonts beyond that. Of course if you avoid small fonts then you could be further still without much problem.
So here are the optimal viewing ranges per monitor size/resolution, 20 inch minimum:


```
[email protected] - 3 - 3.5 ft     (100ppi)  (min 2.2 ft with maybe some jaggies, tight FOV)
[email protected] - 3.2 - 4 ft     (97ppi)   (min 1.7 ft with maybe some jaggies)
[email protected] - 2 - 3 ft       (137ppi)  (min 1.7 ft with maybe some minor jaggies)
[email protected] - 2.9 - 3.5 ft   (100ppi)  (min 1.7 ft with maybe some jaggies)
[email protected] - 2.6 - 3.2 ft   (110ppi)  (min 2.1 ft with maybe some jaggies, tight FOV)
```


Its basically a balancing act between getting far enough for FOV, about the right distance for visual accuity, give or take a bit...and not so far away that everything is too small. The bigger the monitor is, the smaller this ideal range is.

This is all theoretical of course, everyone works differently or has bionic eyes or not...so..there is that, but that's what I have come to finally.

My final take is that if viewing distance is under 3 feet, I'd rather have 32in monitor at 4k for sharp retina experience. Then you have 2k monitors in the 30-32in range that can go another foot out. Then finally if you want 4k beyond 3 feet, you need 43" monitor but has a very small range...only 3-3.5 feet. Maybe 4ft if you avoid small fonts or 2.5 feet with a bit tight FOV.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 11, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Really? My 40" @ 4K is very close to .25 - the difference is vanishingly small.



According to the DPI calculator, your 40" is 110ppi, at just .23 dot pitch. 43" is 102ppi at .25 dot pitch. According to everything I've read and tried, that makes your 40 inch optimal range 2.6-3.2 feet, give or take a few inches.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 11, 2018)

.23, .25 - that's a very small difference.

"Optimal" is subjective and variable. Watching full-screen videos is very different from typing or editing MIDI.

I'm usually 18 - 24" away when I'm working, and as I said, I have good eyes - no reading glasses. We're all different, but if we were *that* different we couldn't all work on the same laptops!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Aug 11, 2018)

I agree Nick. Nonetheless I rest my case after a lot of mental math. 

I gave ranges..and that is why... If you look at the range for the apple cinema display, your viewing distance is right in the range I gave(allowing for some close-up jaggies). Now go apply that logic to your 40" to see how it works if you like.

The above assumes eyes are 20/20, either naturally or with corrective glasses. If worse, then you have to be closer then the max viewing distances given.

Also if you don't ever use small fonts, you could go with larger max distances then those given.


----------

