# 4K 32" monitor recommendations?



## harrybrokensha (Jun 26, 2021)

Hi all -

I'm currently working on a dual-screen setup (one AOC QHD 32" monitor as my main monitor, and a 27" ASUS off to one side.) I'd like to replace my main monitor with a new 4k 32" (or larger) monitor, and mount my current 32" monitor on a stand above it - both for easier viewing/less turning my head while working to picture, and because I'm limited on desk space horizontally.

I've been looking at this Samsung model:  

and this LG model: . 

There seem to be some mixed reviews on Amazon so I thought I'd see if anyone had any experience with these or alternative suggestions - have been looking at all sorts of options. Ideally looking for something around the £500 mark, but could be tempted by something more expensive if it's worth the investment.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Thanks


----------



## davidson (Jun 26, 2021)

I realise its quite a bit bigger and more expensive, but I can recommend the lg 48" oled. If you shop around they can be bought new ~£900. Anything less than 43" was too small for my eyes at 4k, but the 48" is perfect. It's roughly the ppi as my old 32" monitors at 2560x1600.


----------



## harrybrokensha (Jun 26, 2021)

davidson said:


> I realise its quite a bit bigger and more expensive, but I can recommend the lg 48" oled. If you shop around they can be bought new ~£900. Anything less than 43" was too small for my eyes at 4k, but the 48" is perfect. It's roughly the ppi as my old 32" monitors at 2560x1600.


Thanks - I'll check it out! Trouble is it might be a bit too big for my desk and where I'm sat. I sit about 75cm/2.5ft away from my monitor screen so anything bigger than about 40" would possibly be too big...


----------



## puremusic (Jun 26, 2021)

davidson said:


> I realise its quite a bit bigger and more expensive, but I can recommend the lg 48" oled. If you shop around they can be bought new ~£900. Anything less than 43" was too small for my eyes at 4k, but the 48" is perfect. It's roughly the ppi as my old 32" monitors at 2560x1600.


You're on the right track with IPS monitors. VA doesn't look good up close. For what it's worth I don't think you really utilize 4K at 32", I have a 42" 4K and I have to set the windows custom scaling to 350%. 

The bigger the monitors you do want to sit further away from. Might be a benefit staring at something a bit farther away re: producing nearsightedness.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 26, 2021)

I have three of the Samsung you linked to, commonly known as the “J59” model. They are great for the price, very thin and light, although be aware that the stand it comes with is at a fixed height and only tilts a little bit. Also they use a skinny wall wart ac adaptor and not a standard IEC lead, but the prongs on the wall wart can rotate 90 degrees to accommodate various power strips.


----------



## harrybrokensha (Jun 26, 2021)

Thanks all for your advice. I think in the future if I'm working in a bigger room I'll have a look into a deeper desk setup where I can have a larger monitor that I sit further away from, but for now I'll have to stick with something between 32-38". 



charlieclouser said:


> I have three of the Samsung you linked to, commonly known as the “J59” model. They are great for the price, very thin and light, although be aware that the stand it comes with is at a fixed height and only tilts a little bit. Also they use a skinny wall wart ac adaptor and not a standard IEC lead, but the prongs on the wall wart can rotate 90 degrees to accommodate various power strips.


Thanks, that's good to know - one of these Samsung J59s sounds like a good option. I'll be using a separate stand to mount it on which will give some more flexibility on height and tilt.


----------



## davidson (Jun 26, 2021)

harrybrokensha said:


> Thanks - I'll check it out! Trouble is it might be a bit too big for my desk and where I'm sat. I sit about 75cm/2.5ft away from my monitor screen so anything bigger than about 40" would possibly be too big...


I just measured and my eyes are anywhere from 65-95cm depending on what I'm doing, but probably somewhere around 80-85 for the majority of the time. Honestly, if you haven't tried it, please try to. It's nothing like as OTT as it sounds, and I've noticed more and more composers are going down the 48" 4k route because it's near perfect. Wouldn't you agree @christianhenson?


----------



## charlieclouser (Jun 26, 2021)

I tried a 43" LG 4k display for a minute, but it was just too big - I had to keep swiveling my head left-right, instead of just moving my eyes. But I am not very far away from the displays - 30 inches / 75 cm - so a 32" is still the right size for me. However I don't have a big touchscreen or any large control surfaces between me and the displays like some folks do. If I did then maybe a larger display would work. But it would still block the center speaker and create other issues in my space, so I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## Pictus (Jun 26, 2021)

Make sure the model you want to buy does not use PWM for backlight dimming!
At least avoid the low frequency PWM models...
Why PWM is bad https://www.notebookcheck.net/Why-Pulse-Width-Modulation-PWM-is-such-a-headache.270240.0.html

Sorted by *text clarity*, only flicker free models listed.
Click in the model name(left side) for the review.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/57130




Other good review sites:
https://www.prad.de/test-kaufberatung/testberichte/test-monitore/
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/

BTW, looks like the LG 32U*L*500 and LG 32U*N*500 uses the same panel and both are flicker free.
https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/071b146316


----------



## dylanmixer (Jun 26, 2021)

LG consistently makes the nicest screens I've ever seen. I have two 4k 27in in my set up.


----------



## HDJK (Jul 8, 2021)

Still waiting for the https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32ep950-b-oled-monitor (LG 32EP950-B) to finally arrive ... and come down in price  
But it will definitely be a great monitor!


----------



## redlester (Nov 25, 2021)

Just reviving this, rather than create a new thread - like the OP I have a small space where 32" would be about the maximum physical size to fit while remaining practical. 

My viewing distance is around 24" currently from my 24" 1920x1200 monitor.

I would love to move to 4K for the extra screen space, but the main thing worrying me is the size and legibility of things such as Kontakt. Can anyone post a screen grab of what a typical Kontakt instrument looks like on a 32" 4K screen?

I would also be concerned about some of the UAD plugins as these also don't have resizable interfaces.


----------



## harrybrokensha (Nov 25, 2021)

I went for the 32" Samsung J59 in the end and so far it's been great for my taste and setup. Text (especially Kontakt and some Cubase text) is pretty small, but I have my mixer window, midi editor and picture on separate monitors and I sit close enough to the screen that it's not caused me any eye strain (as of yet anyway!)

Have attached a screen grab of Cubase open with Kontakt and a UAD plugin for reference.


----------



## KEM (Nov 25, 2021)

I have the Samsung UJ590 and I like it a lot, just saw in this thread that Charlie has them as well, so there’s two recommendations right there


----------



## spyder (Dec 2, 2021)

I too am looking for a single larger monitor to replace two small ones. However, I am confused by what aspect ratio I need to get the best view of Cubase. As mentioned by KEM there is the 32" UJ590 at 16x9, but I also like the 34" SJ55W at 21x9. 

But which is the best aspect ratio?


----------



## topaz (Jan 12, 2022)

KEM said:


> I have the Samsung UJ590 and I like it a lot, just saw in this thread that Charlie has them as well, so there’s two recommendations right there


Do you have to scale, do you use windows, how far is the display from you ?

Thanks


----------



## cedricm (Jan 12, 2022)

spyder said:


> I too am looking for a single larger monitor to replace two small ones. However, I am confused by what aspect ratio I need to get the best view of Cubase. As mentioned by KEM there is the 32" UJ590 at 16x9, but I also like the 34" SJ55W at 21x9.
> 
> But which is the best aspect ratio?


It's really a question of taste. 16*9 = standard for the last 10 years, 21*9 = most smartphones today.


----------



## cedricm (Jan 12, 2022)

topaz said:


> Do you have to scale, do you use windows, how far is the display from you ?
> 
> Thanks


It's a question of taste and viewing distance. On my 40 inch display, I'm using it with no scaling. 
On a 32" you'll probably use 200 % scaling.


----------



## iMovieShout (Jan 12, 2022)

I had AOC monitors (Q3277 / 4K, 32") but then got a Samsung 32" 4K and the difference in picture quality and colour was astounding!! The Samsung U32J59X picture quality was 1000 times better than the AOC. With the Samsung, whites are actually brilliant white (dull grey with AOC), and picture crispness is truly amazing.
The Samsung scales really well too. So fonts, menus, titles etc scale well and are easy to read with Windows10Pro.

That was 2 years ago, and have since replaced 3 of my 4 screens with Samsung U32J59X, and have not been disappointed.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 12, 2022)

I honestly wouldn't bother with a 4k display unless its 43" or above. I had a 27" 4k screen and text was so tiny I put it to 1440p and it was great. I also have a 43" 4k screen and I even have that set to 1440p. I found I was still straining to read certain things. You will get bad eye sight straining at 4k for too many years. Its not worth it unless the screen is massive and mounted on the wall and by that time, you might as well just get a 1440p monitor and keep your eye sight. 😂


----------



## d.healey (Jan 12, 2022)

I bought a really nice 32" 4k BenQ monitor. It's going back though because without scaling a lot of stuff is just too small (and I sit close-ish to the screen). With fractional scaling nothing is crisp and which 200% scaling I gain no extra screen space.

I'm now using a 1440p ultrawide.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 12, 2022)

d.healey said:


> I bought a really nice 32" 4k BenQ monitor. It's going back though because without scaling a lot of stuff is just too small (and I sit close-ish to the screen). With fractional scaling nothing is crisp and which 200% scaling I gain no extra screen space.
> 
> I'm now using a 1440p ultrawide.


Exactly.

I'm so done with 4k. Obviously if you're a video editor, game developer and/or gamer, 4k has its place. But for DAW work? 2560 x 1440p is a great happy place to be I think.


----------



## topaz (Jan 12, 2022)

I have a
EX2780Q (2k 1440p)​https://www.benq.eu/en-uk/monitor/gaming/ex2780q.html
behind a 21.5 inch touchscreen https://www.hannspree.eu/product/ht-225-hpb/

and usng cubase 11x on windows 10 I have to scale to 125 in cubase or text is too small for me.

the main monitor is at arms length. would a 32" 4k create even more of an issue.

it would be great to just have a a nice 27/32 inch running with 0 scalling and useable visibilty.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

Love my 32” 4K LG. There are newer models now. I personally think it’s worth it to spend more for a high quality monitor. The trick to using and loving 4K is to use hidpi modes. Mine is a joy to use.


----------



## topaz (Jan 12, 2022)

excuse my igonarance but 2k is just QHD right ?


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 12, 2022)

Mac users just sitting back, marveling at all the Windows users who can't properly make use of a 4k screen smaller than a wall because Microsoft still hasn't figured things out after how many years? I don't understand why they haven't just copied what Apple did: screens are defined in "points" rather than pixels, and high-res screens (4k, 5k, laptop screens) use 4 pixels per point, vs 1 on HD/2k. Software interfaces and text stay the same size on 4k/5k, just sharper, while video/photos are displayed at the true pixel size.

This means that I can plug my MacBook Air into a 2k 27" display and a 5k 27" and everything will display exactly the same - windows the same size and in exactly the same location - on both displays. The only difference will be that the 5k display will have much sharper text and interface elements, while displaying much more of a 20mp photo.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

That is hidpi which is on both platforms but configured differently. On the mac you also vary the hidpi setting it’s not hard coded to 4 pixels per point. But yea hidpi is awesome!


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

One more thing to say, you can calculate the ppi for any given screen size using various web calculators out there. Use that based on the native resolution of pixels per inch to find out what ppi had the fonts the size you want for your sitting distance. Once you know this ppi you can recalculate it for any other screen size as POINTS per inch and that will tell you what hidpi resolution to use for the fonts to be the size you want on the size of screen you are dealing with.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 12, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> That is hidpi which is on both platforms but configured differently. On the mac you also vary the hidpi setting it’s not hard coded to 4 pixels per point. But yea hidpi is awesome!


Whatever you want to call it - hidpi, Retina, etc - it's clear that Microsoft has missed something when users can't effectively use a 4k screen <43" because of font size issues. That just doesn't happen on a Mac. The original Retina MacBook Pro came out in 2012, the 5k iMac in 2014, and there was no downside - interfaces stayed the same but sharper, and you got to see more of your photo/video/etc. Once I'd seen photos on a Retina screen (on an iPad), I realized that I couldn't judge sharpness properly from normal viewing distances on a lower resolution screen any more, but I wasn't a laptop user back then and had to wait for the iMac to get there on the computer side.

Also, you're correct about the setting not really always being 4 pixels per point, but I didn't want to confuse things. I run my 4k display simulating a 5k (2560x1440 points), because it gives me the best combination of screen real estate and interface size, and the lack of 5k displays makes that route a non-starter. What the OS actually does when you run at a point resolution that isn't exactly ½ the pixel dimensions is interesting - it actually renders the screen at the full resolution (so 5120x2880 in my case) to an off-screen buffer, then resizes the result to the actual pixel dimensions of your display. Some people are very sensitive to the difference between "real" Retina (Points=Pixels/2) and "simulated" (render off-screen and resize), but I'm not one of them.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 12, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> Mac users just sitting back, marveling at all the Windows users who can't properly make use of a 4k screen smaller than a wall because Microsoft still hasn't figured things out after how many years? I don't understand why they haven't just copied what Apple did: screens are defined in "points" rather than pixels, and high-res screens (4k, 5k, laptop screens) use 4 pixels per point, vs 1 on HD/2k. Software interfaces and text stay the same size on 4k/5k, just sharper, while video/photos are displayed at the true pixel size.
> 
> This means that I can plug my MacBook Air into a 2k 27" display and a 5k 27" and everything will display exactly the same - windows the same size and in exactly the same location - on both displays. The only difference will be that the 5k display will have much sharper text and interface elements, while displaying much more of a 20mp photo.


For what I done on Windows 10 with 4K screen you are correct! Okay for photos and videos and when I need a break -- a quick switch over to Roku and I'm watching reruns of Star Wars 

And now the "caveats" for Windows 10 and Cubase 10 along with third-party plugins -- best explained by reading the following article - Link - However! Cubase 11 (and Nuendo 11) ' may have' addressed this (?), best explained by reading this article - Link - New custom scaling option. 

Now! Since my wife will own that Windows 10 desktop for her photo and video work, it is likely I will be switching to the new Apple Silicon specifically for DAW, and other tasks such as 4K 3D renders and 4K video editing. 

Now picture this: Apple silicon and DAW hooked up to a 43" 4K screen, and then I sit back with feet up in my Lay-Z-Boy couch recliner and get some serious work done. Ah the pleasures of working from home


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

Windows configures it as rgames described eerlier, as a percentage. 200% would be the same as retina standard setting.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 12, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> Windows configures it as rgames described eerlier, as a percentage. 200% would be the same as retina standard setting.


But it's clearly not working the same, otherwise Windows users wouldn't be saying that 4k<43" makes things too small.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 12, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> Windows configures it as rgames described eerlier, as a percentage. 200% would be the same as retina standard setting.


My preferred setting: Windows 10, Scale and Layout is 300%, and viewing distance is 5ft for a 43" screen to avoid neck pain.

Edited in: Height of seating should be at the same level of eyes centered to the screen.
I should also point out, the fonts look normal, not too small, not too big, clear and sharp. 
.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> But it's clearly not working the same, otherwise Windows users wouldn't be saying that 4k<43" makes things too small.



They are probably using 100% setting or something else. Windows and Mac both support hidpi but the way you go about configuring it is different. Apple calls it “retina” but it’s all basically the same tech. I don’t remember the exact name of the windows setting but it’s the same tech being used as in the mac. I happen to think apple has done a better job with it but it’s basically the same thing.

JohnG is using a Mac anyway. It’s actually easier to configure this kind of stuff on windows. Mac tries to hide the gory details, while on windows you can simply set a percentage. But I feel that macos is doing smarter stuff with window edges and corners and things like that because 200% hidpi is the default mode of all current apple displays as so called “retina” displays. 

I think more apps on Mac basically just work properly in hidpi mode because if that while on pc you occasionally run into problem where an app doesn’t work well in hidpi mode.

For Mac, I highly reccomend switchresx product to configure custom hidpi resolutions to use. And by the way some of what is possible depends on the gpu being used too.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

The font size issue is complicated and 90% of users don’t understand what they are doing. Like I said earlier, use a web calculator to calculate the ppi for a given screen size and resolution. You will find that around 95-105 pixels per inch will result in what seems like a normal font size that is easily readable. The Apple Cinema Display is a classic example of pretty optimal font sizing at native resolution ( not hidpi ). It’s in that range. I personally think that anything over 110ppi is going to result in fonts being too small. Anything under about 95 will feel like too big and wasting space.

Then if you want to use hidpi modes you can calculate what resolution you need with a given screen size to have ppi in that range where the fonts will seem “right” from about three feet viewing distance. Use that resolution in hidpi with a 4K monitor and it will be what you want. 

Now if you are sitting further watching then three feet, then the fonts need to be a little bigger which means lower ppi value. It depends a lot on your viewing distance too.

When you ultrawide you will have less options because hidpi will not be an option. The screen’s native resolution needs to be pretty close to the ppi range I mentioned above for use at 3 feet distance. And you will just need to use that resolution always, hidpi will not be an option. And scaling down without hidpi will bring in more jaggies


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

JohnG I also want to say that gaming monitors may or may not be what you want. They tend to emphasize high frame rates more so then clear imaging. I find business oriented monitors to be more optimal for what we do but read the reviews to make sure you will be happy with colors and so forth for the richest clear desktop experience.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

The nice thing about mac compared to windows, in terms of hidpi, is that once you setup a set of resolutions in switchresx, it’s VERY easy to switch between different hidpi resolutions on the fly in a few seconds. 

But again with a large ultrawide monitor that will not really be an option.

I kind of want a 49 in ultrawide but I also really like having hidpi modes so I’m quite happy with 32” 4K for now. I think we will need More powerful computers in the future with bigger gpu’s to support 49in ultrawide that can also do the hidpi thing. We’re not there yet not really. So you kinda have to decide if a given ultrawide works at its given native resolution and just use that all the time ( check the ppi ). Otherwise my vote is for 32” 4K monitors for now.

In the future I would like to have ultrawide but mounted in a lower position and perhaps angled back so that I look down on it a little bit and can look over the top of it at a large 43” in the back wall.

Some considerations about audio monitor placement are also very very valid


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 12, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'm so done with 4k. Obviously if you're a video editor, game developer and/or gamer, 4k has its place. But for DAW work? 2560 x 1440p is a great happy place to be I think.


I too have the Samsung UJ59, and I run it at 3200 x 1800. The trick is to use SwitchResX and run it at one of the 60Hz HIDP resolutions it supports.

2560 x 1400 would be fine too (I had a 2560 x 1600 Apple Cinema Display for 15 years), but this is better for me.

4K would be too small on this sized monitor.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 12, 2022)

davidson said:


> Anything less than 43" was too small for my eyes at 4k


Same here! Studio setup (layout) and comfort viewing varies with the individual.
.


harrybrokensha said:


> Hi all -
> 
> I'm currently working on a dual-screen setup (one AOC QHD 32" monitor as my main monitor, and a 27" ASUS off to one side.) I'd like to replace my main monitor with a new 4k 32" (or larger) monitor, and mount my current 32" monitor on a stand above it - both for easier viewing/less turning my head while working to picture, and because I'm limited on desk space horizontally.


A double tier stand with 43" DAW monitor is fine (not too big, not too small), and perhaps much smaller TV on top tilted down - because you're sitting close enough to see the picture. But instead of looking left to right, now you'll be looking up and down. This could cause neck pain. Another solution might be PiP setup with one large screen. I tried an LG 43" monitor with PiP but the connectors were faulty, and its PiP layout is somewhat limited. I had to send it back. Now I'm okay with two screens but I'm seated further back! Whereas your horizontal space is limited.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2022)

It comes down to dot pitch, which is the physical size of the picture (e.g. the type). I'm comfortable with it in the .23mm range, sitting a couple of feet from my main monitor.

That's 40" monitor at 4K res (3840 x 2160), or a 32" one at 3008 x 1692. 

Like Charlie, I didn't like using a 40" monitor at all when I tried it - too much head-turning to get to things at the sides of the screen. 

Calculator here:






PX CALC: DPI Calculator with Dot Pitch, Size, Aspect Ratio, Pixels, and Megapixels


When you zoom to 100% in programs like Photoshop or Illustrator you're not actually seeing true print size, but if you know your monitor's DPI (dots per inch), also known as PPI (pixels per inch), you can work around this.



www.pxcalc.com


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

Yea dot pitch is the thing to pay attention to! I'm not sure how to convert dot pitch values to pixels per inch, but I know the classic 30" Apple Cinema Display has PPI = 100. 

I use this calculator for ppi: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

But anyway, I find an effective ppi, based on the chosen resolution and screen size, should be in the range between maybe 95-110 IMHO. Anything in that range should feel like a "normal" font size, under 100 will seem on the large size and over 105 might seem slightly small but still doable. The 3008x1692 resolution that Nick mentioned works out to 108 ppi, which is what I usually run at also, sometimes I run slightly lower resolution bringing it closer to 105 ppi, which I find to be about where I can work longer periods of time a little better, but I can easily go to 110 ppi for decent amounts of time or sometimes even 115ppi for short periods of time.

The above is true from a typical viewing distance of 2-4 feet. If you are further then you may need bigger fonts (lower ppi value).

dot-pitch or ppi....more or less same thing in different terms...is the key to understanding what resolution at any given size of monitor will seem normal or non-squintable.

HiDPI tech is the key to getting the smoothest resolution scaling when using 4k and 5k monitors that have hardware PPI greater then the above mentioned range.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 13, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It comes down to dot pitch, which is the physical size of the picture (e.g. the type). I'm comfortable with it in the .23mm range, sitting a couple of feet from my main monitor.
> 
> That's 40" monitor at 4K res (3840 x 2160), or a 32" one at 3008 x 1692.
> 
> ...


If horizontal space is limited, then 32" is preferred, my apology for suggestions based on what I prefer. Sitting close: placing another monitor on the side will see head turning left to right, place it on top will see head nodding up and down. I would see if there is anyway to resolve the limited horizontal space. I use to be seated closer but I changed the layout of the studio because I much prefer being seated further back.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 13, 2022)

3CPU said:


> my apology for suggestions based on what I prefer.


Oh, I was just commenting in general, certainly not arguing with anything you wrote!

My preference is to have a single monitor in front of me, and then I have a 40" TV hanging from the ceiling 5' away (at 1080p resolution even though it's a 4K TV).


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 13, 2022)

*Hi Nick Batzdorf*, 

All is very good! Thanks. 

The diversity and wealth of information here is pretty awesome! This is a great forum.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2022)

I did a quick post about this on SynthAndSoftware.com:









Do Huge Computer Monitors Make Synths Sound Phatter?


Um, no. But just one software synth can fill your entire screen, so musicians shop for big ones – only to discover the difference between size, resolution, and dot pitch. Nick Batzdorf mansplains. Check out the header graphic for this story. That’s just a single instance of Native Instruments’...




synthandsoftware.com


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 14, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I did a quick post about this on SynthAndSoftware.com:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great simple to understand article! And I love the humor in the title.

Reducing eye strain matters when working long hours. If sitting close (about 1.5ft to 2.5ft) a 30-32" monitor is fine! This works for setups with limited space. Whereas if sitting much further back for me a larger screen is required, images will look larger. I tested my studio layout with a 32" and it wasn't large enough for my setup, my eyes would strain.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jan 15, 2022)

Just to chime in here with my personal choice:

After a lot of research (wanted IPS instead of VA, chroma 4:4:4, etc) went with a 43” 4K LG 43UP7000PUA from Best Buy. 

Fantastic, really sharp text great cheap monitor for $329. I have it at full res at 32” from sitting position. At that distance don’t have to move my head at all unless I want to regard the laptop screen.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jan 15, 2022)

Oops wanted to add I have my prescription dialed in to about 30” depth so unless your glasses focus good at that distance this is not the solution for you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 15, 2022)

clarkcontrol said:


> Oops wanted to add I have my prescription dialed in to about 30” depth so unless your glasses focus good at that distance this is not the solution for you.



My eyes focus well without glasses at any distance, but for me - again - it's a matter of balancing the sizes of the image (mainly type) and the entire screen so I'm comfortable and don't have to think about it.

There's a range, but as I said: 32" @ 3200 x 1800 = just right, because it's about .22mm dot pitch (which is the smallest I'd want to go). Actually, 3008 x 1692 is a little better.

A 40" monitor at 4K is the right dot pitch, but I'd have to move a larger monitor farther away to avoid having to turn my head too far to see the edges. And then I'd have to enlarge the picture, so you're back where you started.

Everyone has to experiment to see what's comfortable for them!


----------



## KEM (Jan 15, 2022)

If I could afford one I’d buy the Apple Pro Display XDR without hesitation, it’s a thing of beauty… (it’s also 6k but oh well, still applies)


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jan 15, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> My eyes focus well without glasses at any distance, but for me - again - it's a matter of balancing…



Lucky you! And I agree with all you wrote I will add. I was just sharing, I hope people don’t mind. 

The dot pitch is slightly larger on the 43” so it works really well at the distance I have atm. I could probably pull it in a bit, but then I would have to change my prescription lol. 

Ideally I would bring it in closer, I don’t mind having to move my eyes/head a little. The main thing I like about the LG is that it has really good off axis performance, so pushing in doesn’t dim the edges.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 15, 2022)

Young people won't understand, but the ability to focus at a particular distance becomes a big deal with a lot of us as we get older. I bought the original 5k iMac in 2015, but as my eyes changed in my late 40s, I actually had to wear my old glasses in order to have the iMac at a comfortable distance and be able to read things, since it fell in an awkward place with my progressive lenses where it wasn't far enough away for my far prescription, but too far away for my near.

It was so bad that I actually went to a 2016 13" MacBook Pro (in hindsight, not a good computer) because I could focus on a laptop screen with my near prescription without issues. That turned out to not be a good solution, and I ended up on a 2017 21.5" 4k iMac that summer, since I could bring the 21.5" display close enough to make it readable with my near prescription without having to turn my head back and forth to see the whole screen.

Fortunately, my eyes have stabilized at a place where I can now comfortably read a 27" screen at a reasonable distance with my far prescription, so I've been able to go back to a more normal setup over the last few years, but there was a period of a couple years where my eyesight became a major factor in which computers I could comfortably use.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 16, 2022)

clarkcontrol said:


> Lucky you!


Yes, very lucky. I have one nearsignted eye and one that's pretty close to 20/20. So between the two I see very well.

Now, they don't get the concept of both eyes working together when I go to renew my driver's license every few years. I can't read the giant E on the chart with my nearsighted eye, so I just bring a note from my opthalmologist. 



rnb_2 said:


> Young people won't understand, but the ability to focus at a particular distance becomes a big deal with a lot of us as we get older



My suggestion is to put your monitor on an arm so you can position it where your eyes like it.

Arms are a good idea regardless of your eyes, actually.


----------



## topaz (Jan 16, 2022)

Ive settled on a 32” 2k 1440p  

The 27” 2k was too small for my tired eyes.


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 16, 2022)

And its not just my tired eyes, other body parts go numb.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 16, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> Young people won't understand, but the ability to focus at a particular distance becomes a big deal with a lot of us as we get older. I bought the original 5k iMac in 2015, but as my eyes changed in my late 40s, I actually had to wear my old glasses in order to have the iMac at a comfortable distance and be able to read things, since it fell in an awkward place with my progressive lenses where it wasn't far enough away for my far prescription, but too far away for my near.
> 
> It was so bad that I actually went to a 2016 13" MacBook Pro (in hindsight, not a good computer) because I could focus on a laptop screen with my near prescription without issues. That turned out to not be a good solution, and I ended up on a 2017 21.5" 4k iMac that summer, since I could bring the 21.5" display close enough to make it readable with my near prescription without having to turn my head back and forth to see the whole screen.
> 
> Fortunately, my eyes have stabilized at a place where I can now comfortably read a 27" screen at a reasonable distance with my far prescription, so I've been able to go back to a more normal setup over the last few years, but there was a period of a couple years where my eyesight became a major factor in which computers I could comfortably use.


right there with you. I got some little rubber stick on things that I sometimes put on the bridge of my progressives, which lifts them up just enough so that the distance is right without having to tip my head back. I really want to get a set of dedicated computer glasses with the right distance, but I find that I change my distance for various things, so progressives are simply a lot better, but I think for working on the computer I'd like to see if there is some way so that the "distance" zone is slightly higher on the lense...so that basically it will work out most typically to look at my computer monitor 3 feet way, can look down to read, etc...and then if I need to see across the room I would simply tip my head down a little bit to look through the top of the lense. Its a non-standard progressive setup that would only really work while using the computer.


----------



## IFM (Jan 24, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I'm so done with 4k. Obviously if you're a video editor, game developer and/or gamer, 4k has its place. But for DAW work? 2560 x 1440p is a great happy place to be I think.


Funny you mentioned 1440p being ideal as I have 3 monitors but the center one is a VP3268-4K and any program other than Logic gets hard to use. Having spent the last several months in Cubase at 3008x1692 and just dealing with nearly impossible to see icons and text tonight I switched to 1440p and it was like a breath of fresh air. What I lose in screen real estate I gain in legibility. The side monitors are all 1080p.


----------



## edhamilton (Jan 24, 2022)

Great thread.

I'm still on apple thunderbolt 27's displays and recently bought an LG qhd 32 to replace it.
It sucked. just bad. Blurry text. 

I'm at the age that the posts about 2560 x 1440 being ideal is probably right for my eyes.

So what 32" has the clearest text at that resolution?
4k scaled up? or is there a 32" that's on par with the old apple thunderbolt 27?

appreciate your thoughts


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 24, 2022)

IFM said:


> Funny you mentioned 1440p being ideal as I have 3 monitors but the center one is a VP3268-4K and any program other than Logic gets hard to use. Having spent the last several months in Cubase at 3008x1692 and just dealing with nearly impossible to see icons and text tonight I switched to 1440p and it was like a breath of fresh air. What I lose in screen real estate I gain in legibility. The side monitors are all 1080p.


Yeah, I felt the same switching mine to that. So done with 4k man. I also really enjoy 1080p screens now just for stuff like Kontakt where the GUI is still not resizable. My touch screen is 1080p and its perfect.


----------



## Fidelity (Jan 24, 2022)

I've been super happy with my bargain basement $160 Samsung 4k TV (open box, but still the lowest end model they made at the time).

Unless you're doing photo editing on your display (which I'm doing on mine and absolutely shouldn't; I have to double check my work on other devices for higher end gigs) or have discerning tastes, anything fancy is absolute overkill.

That said, if you do, beeline a 10-bit unit (ideally OLED or µLED) with a high % coverage of the NTSC or Adobe RGB gamut and invest in a colorimeter.

Ideally.

Or just be a cheapo like me and waste $$ on music software instead


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 24, 2022)

edhamilton said:


> Great thread.
> 
> I'm still on apple thunderbolt 27's displays and recently bought an LG qhd 32 to replace it.
> It sucked. just bad. Blurry text.
> ...


Get any 4k display, go into Displays in System Preferences, switch Resolution to "Scaled", and click on the first option to the right of Default. This will give you the equivalent of 2560x1440, only sharper. You're basically telling the Mac to simulate a 5k display on a 4k.

I don't disagree with the sentiment that, for a lot of people, 2560x1440 is pretty ideal, but the Mac has an easy way to simulate that, but with clearer text. As long as you're not on an Intel Mac mini or a 13" Intel MacBook Pro (with weak Intel integrated GPUs), the GPU should be able to handle the extra resolution without issue.


----------



## edhamilton (Jan 25, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> There's a range, but as I said: 32" @ 3200 x 1800 = just right, because it's about .22mm dot pitch (which is the smallest I'd want to go). Actually, 3008 x 1692 is a little better.


Seems like pretty great advice.
So which 32" has the sharpest text?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 25, 2022)

edhamilton said:


> Seems like pretty great advice.
> So which 32" has the sharpest text?


I'm afraid I don't know, but it's hard to imagine any 4K monitor not having sharp text these days - even if it's a TV rather than a computer monitor.

The other factor is HiDPI, which doubles the pixels and makes it sharper. I'm just writing a quick post about that right now, which I'l have up on SynthAndSoftware.com before long.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2022)

Fidelity said:


> I've been super happy with my bargain basement $160 Samsung 4k TV (open box, but still the lowest end model they made at the time).
> 
> Unless you're doing photo editing on your display (which I'm doing on mine and absolutely shouldn't; I have to double check my work on other devices for higher end gigs) or have discerning tastes, anything fancy is absolute overkill.
> 
> ...


I just saw this.

My new get rich quick scheme is Modern art giclée, which technically is photo editing (www.NickBatzdorf.com in case anyone is interested).

Amazingly, between the built-in macOS monitor profile, the printer itself (Canon Pro-1000), expensive-ass inks, the ICC printer/paper profiles, and a very slight boost to the brightness and contrast in Canon's Pro Print & Layout software (2 each on a scale of 0-50)... the colors I see on my Samsung U3259JX monitor and what comes out of the printer are as close a match as one could hope for.

I'm not convinced I could improve anything with a spectrometer and all that.


----------



## jneebz (Apr 13, 2022)

So I’ve got a Mac Studio coming (July??) and after reading this thread, seems like a 32” 4k with some resolution tweaks in OS X can mimic my current 2015 Retina iMac and maybe even clearer. Does that sound about right?


----------



## rnb_2 (Apr 13, 2022)

jneebz said:


> So I’ve got a Mac Studio coming (July??) and after reading this thread, seems like a 32” 4k with some resolution tweaks in OS X can mimic my current 2015 Retina iMac and maybe even clearer. Does that sound about right?


I wouldn't say "even clearer", but it might be close enough that you wouldn't notice. I haven't had an actual 5k display in a few years, but have been running 4k screens on the first "more space" setting in Display Preferences - which emulates 5k - and I can't tell the difference from normal viewing distances. I'm looking at my displays with almost-55-year-old, progressive-lens-aided eyes, though, so YMMV. On a 32" screen, there's a chance you might be able to tell (I haven't used anything larger than 27"), but possibly not - a lot depends on your eyesight and what you might be sensitive to.


----------



## mscp (Apr 13, 2022)

harrybrokensha said:


> Hi all -
> 
> I'm currently working on a dual-screen setup (one AOC QHD 32" monitor as my main monitor, and a 27" ASUS off to one side.) I'd like to replace my main monitor with a new 4k 32" (or larger) monitor, and mount my current 32" monitor on a stand above it - both for easier viewing/less turning my head while working to picture, and because I'm limited on desk space horizontally.
> 
> ...



I had the LG and it was a nightmare. Faulty component plus lack of customer care = didn’t bother getting another one. 

Instead, bought the Samsung later on - it works and doesn’t give me any headaches. 

Funny you showed the two monitors I purchased in the last 3 years. 😂


----------



## thevisi0nary (Apr 14, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> My new get rich quick scheme is Modern art giclée, which technically is photo editing (www.NickBatzdorf.com in case anyone is interested).


Cool work man


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2022)

thevisi0nary said:


> Cool work man


Thanks. The thing is, this is like everything else - your latest work is always better than what you showed previously.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 14, 2022)

mscp said:


> I had the LG and it was a nightmare. Faulty component plus lack of customer care = didn’t bother getting another one.
> 
> Instead, bought the Samsung later on - it works and doesn’t give me any headaches.
> 
> Funny you showed the two monitors I purchased in the last 3 years. 😂



That might not be a trend, just your unfortunate experience.

Both monitors I use on my computer are Samsung. But we have an LG OLED TV that is beyond outstanding.

Well, the picture is. The sound is arse, but that's all TVs.


----------



## mscp (Apr 14, 2022)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That might not be a trend, just your unfortunate experience.
> 
> Both monitors I use on my computer are Samsung. But we have an LG OLED TV that is beyond outstanding.
> 
> Well, the picture is. The sound is arse, but that's all TVs.


Oh, definitely not a trend. My own experience.


----------

