# Monitors - Where We Look The Most and Discuss The Least



## LFO (Mar 12, 2014)

Greetings,
I'm currently looking at some new video monitors for my new DAW and as usual, there are too many choices to make sense of much of it. I searched the forum to see what others are using and was surprised to see monitors only brought up in a general way such as `my 27 inch monitor'.

I'd be interested to hear what you all are using. Although I know I want 1080x1920 resolution I don't know if I *need* it or not. Fast refresh rates are important and text clarity is important.

Given that the monitors are literally what I am looking at 95% of the time I'm making music, I'd like to make the right choice. Any input is appreciated!

Kevin


----------



## TGV (Mar 12, 2014)

I've got a cheap-o iiyama (XB2327HDS, I paid less than $250 I think) with that resolution, and it works fine, even for occasional gaming. Super-fast refresh rates are not really important, or rather: they don't tell the whole story. Read reviews and user experiences. It's better to buy an older monitor that has proven its worth than a new one with high specs.


----------



## Jem7 (Mar 12, 2014)

I'm still stuck my old LG L1960SR and Samsung SyncMaster940 but seems like most guys at LA/Hollywood using Dell screens. Including Hans


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Mar 12, 2014)

I use two 27" displays at 2560x1440 resolution each, and I consider it one the best investments I have made. Are you SURE you don't want to go higher than 1080x1920??
My opinion would be that it is hard to go wrong these days, unless you pay dirt-cheap.
IPS screens look amazing, which Dell and LG both sell good models of.

EDIT: specifically my displays are FSM-270YV LED with multiple inputs (2xHDMI, Dual-Link DVI, DP, VGA), and a Shimian.
There are many korean variants all using the same parts. Catleap, Yamakasi etc...


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2014)

TGV @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> I've got a cheap-o iiyama (XB2327HDS, I paid less than $250 I think) with that resolution, and it works fine, even for occasional gaming. Super-fast refresh rates are not really important, or rather: they don't tell the whole story. Read reviews and user experiences. It's better to buy an older monitor that has proven its worth than a new one with high specs.



me too . i got a 27 inch 1080p at $200. samsung with hdmi input.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2014)

Jem7 @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> I'm still stuck my old LG L1960SR and Samsung SyncMaster940 but seems like most guys at LA/Hollywood using Dell screens. Including Hans



those are the dell 30 inch computer monitors that compete with apple's 30 inch. those are amazing but the price is way too much.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 12, 2014)

Jdiggity1 @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> I use two 27" displays at 2560x1440 resolution each, and I consider it one the best investments I have made. Are you SURE you don't want to go higher than 1080x1920??
> My opinion would be that it is hard to go wrong these days, unless you pay dirt-cheap.
> IPS screens look amazing, which Dell and LG both sell good models of.
> 
> ...



we all do!. its just too expensive to go over 1080p for some


----------



## chillbot (Mar 12, 2014)

I don't have specifics but every time I need monitors I shop around and always end up with Dell, I don't think you'd go wrong with Dell. Their prices are solid for anything but the 30". And they have like 4,000 inputs.

I use two 30" Dell displays at 2560 x 1600, they are phenomenal but about 4-5 years old. I just bought a new 30" Dell for over the mixers and it is giving me serious monitor envy. It's about half the weight, half the thickness, super sharp and bright. Every time I look at it I don't want to go back to looking at my older Dells. But alas I would have to buy TWO of them to replace my main monitors...


----------



## chillbot (Mar 12, 2014)

Oh one thing I noticed when I was buying this monitor, if you're going to get a Dell monitor buy direct from Dell.com. You might save 40 or 50 on a site like amazon.com but you risk not getting the latest build. I think the one I bought is build C and there were a ton of negative reviews on amazon about shoppers being told they were getting C and really getting A or B which had a couple of issues.


----------



## charlieclouser (Mar 12, 2014)

3x HP LP-3065 monitors - 30" at 2560x1600 with matte finish so no glare or reflections. Center = Logic arrange window. Right = Logic environment / mixer. Left = ProTools or VEPro on a separate computer. Love it.

Many years old, and still awesome. They have since been discontinued but the newer ZR30 monitor from HP is basically the same thing but with 1x DVI-D and 1x MiniDisplayPort instead of the 3x DVI-D that mine have.

Now that I'm accustomed to the big monitors there's no way I'll ever go back. At some point when I move to Mac Pro Cylinders I'll get into 4k monitors - but not until they have higher refresh rates (60hz minimum) and the drivers are worked out so I can freely scale to the resolution I want. Since I don't have a mixer or anything between me and the monitors, I don't mind tiny text and I want the MAX number of tracks on screen.


----------



## rgames (Mar 12, 2014)

Definitely go check out the screen and do so in a quiet environment. Other than the annoying DirecTV box that turns itself on every now and then, my screens are the loudest things in my studio. I have Dell 24" screens from 6-7 years ago, so there's probably some noise due to aging electronics, but it's a consideration that is important if you have a quiet studio.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2014)

Apple 30" Cinema Display. Bought it almost eight years ago and it's just great.

You stare at these things all day long. It's worth getting a good one.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 12, 2014)

I have two Dell U2412Ms for writing (one side for score, one for sequencer), a large flat screen for video, a separate, inexpensive monitor for my slave computers and an Apple Cinema Display for ProTools. So, five in all. Probably there's a better way.


----------



## Conor (Mar 13, 2014)

If you're looking for something relatively cheap & mainstream, there's a bit of a problem in that 99% of the displays you'll find at Best Buy (for example) aren't particularly designed for a good user experience. They're designed to look spiffy on the shelf at Best Buy. :roll:

+1 for Dell. I still love my old Dell display for all the little ways it avoids annoying me:
- The edges are matte black, not glossy, so no glare.
- The buttons are unobtrusive, but they are physical buttons that give tactile feedback, which means I can tell what I'm doing in the event I need to change a setting.
- The base is flat, which makes it useful desk space.
- The power supply does NOT emit an annoying, high-pitched whirring/whining sound.

Genius! 

IPS is so much nicer than TN for image quality, viewing angle, and reducing eyestrain, give one a try if you're not familiar with them.

I'm a little confused about this bit:


> "Although I know I want 1080x1920 resolution I don't know if I *need* it or not. Fast refresh rates are important..."



1920x1080 is completely normal at this point. The question is, do you want an even higher resolution than that, or do you want two monitors side by side (my preferred way to work), or both? 

60hz refresh rate is also normal. You can go higher, but I don't think there's much point outside of competitive twitch gaming.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 13, 2014)

Question on IPS. My HP LP2475's (both IPS) have completely blown out reds. I mean, like, retina burning reds. There is no way I can get them to come down without messing up the other colors.

A lot of programs aren't color space aware. Just wondering if other brands (or newer) IPS models have problems with certain colors (particularly red) blown out.

Mahlon


----------



## playz123 (Mar 13, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> Apple 30" Cinema Display. Bought it almost eight years ago and it's just great.
> 
> You stare at these things all day long. It's worth getting a good one.



I would have agreed completely until last year when my 30" Apple Cinema started behaving badly. I eventually replaced it with a 30" Dell U3014, and the differences were amazing. I still retain the Apple monitor and use it from time to time, but am more than happy with the picture quality and performance of the Dell. Yes, some may claim they are expensive, but on the other hand they cost over $1000 less than the Cinema display did in 2008. Just personal opinions of course and not meant to be definitive.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 13, 2014)

Well, I hope mine doesn't start behaving badly!

But they're all much less expensive. Today you can buy a whole 27" iMac for a lot less than the monitor alone was when I bought it in '06.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 13, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> Definitely go check out the screen and do so in a quiet environment. Other than the annoying DirecTV box that turns itself on every now and then, my screens are the loudest things in my studio. I have Dell 24" screens from 6-7 years ago, so there's probably some noise due to aging electronics, but it's a consideration that is important if you have a quiet studio.
> 
> rgames



This!

Interesting, depending on what window I have opened my monitor (LG-Flatron-W2452-TX) produces different sounds.... .


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Mar 13, 2014)

I will be out of line here.

I use NEC and EIZO 30" hardware calibrated wide gammut (107 -ish% Adobe RGB) monitors. However, this is only because of my color accurate workflow requirement (fine art printing). The NEC alone, without the spectrophotometer, sets you back around Euro 3.000,-


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 14, 2014)

LFO @ Wed Mar 12 said:


> Greetings,
> I'm currently looking at some new video monitors for my new DAW and as usual, there are too many choices to make sense of much of it. I searched the forum to see what others are using and was surprised to see monitors only brought up in a general way such as `my 27 inch monitor'.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what you all are using. Although I know I want 1080x1920 resolution I don't know if I *need* it or not. Fast refresh rates are important and text clarity is important.
> ...



Do you use more than one monitor? Or think you might? You may want to consider putting two less expensive 23 inch 1920x1080's side by side. Also, what I mentioned above about the color space. If you're not needing the monitors for photographic work, a non-wide gamut monitor would be better imo. A wide gamut monitor is going to create some pretty intense colors on the web (unless you use Firefox, but still, even then...) and apps that aren't color space aware.

I like the largest screen real estate I can have for Cubase. If you go 27 inch, think about 2560 x 1440 rather than 1920 x 1080. But two 23 inchers will give you more screen horizontally for probably less money.

Mahlon


----------



## FriFlo (Mar 14, 2014)

I was just ready for a new monitor and went for touch screen (already on windows 8 here and expect Cubase 8 to support multitouch). The Acer t272HUL is not exactly cheap, but so far, I am really glad I got it. I can tilt it about 45 degree, so using the touch functionality is really great. Still use a mouse and a keyboard, though ...


----------



## JFK (Mar 14, 2014)

I use a U3011. When I get the money, it's going to be a PQ321Q @ 3840x2160 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DJ4BIKA/?tag=pcpapi-20


----------



## LFO (Mar 14, 2014)

Thanks everyone for your replies!

Some good information here and the thread did convince me I should not save a few $$ with 24 inch screens, but go for 27 or 30' screens.

Dell monitors were the front runners....until....I read about BenQ. It just so happens the son of a friend of mine was running a BenQ monitor. It looked sharp, the colors were vibrant, but could be changed to taste and most importantly text was crisp. Ok, not as crisp as what I would find on an equal sized monitor that cost 2 -3x what I wanted to spend, but crisp to my satisfaction.

I was not sure what combination of screen size and resolution I wanted. 1920 x 1080 gets a bit small for me, even with the customization you can do in Windows for font size, etc. I thought maybe if I went down in resolution it would help see things better. I tried it on my friend's son's monitor. It was immediately apparent 1920 x 1080 was the minimum resolution I would need.

If you are not familiar with BenQ, they are a very popular choice for gamers. I don't game on PCs, but I figure if they work well for gamers, then they should work well for me.

So I did some price checking and I could get BenQ 27' monitors for $215 apiece on Amazon. I ordered them and got them the next day. (God bless Amazon Prime!) I've used them for about 15 hours and here is what I think:

1. The colors are great and the calibration system lets me tune the monitors to exactly what I wanted. A strong point for the monitor.
2. While nearly as crisp as I would like them, text is just a bit off. Not enough to bother me, but it isn't like much more expensive monitors.
3. Viewing angles are great!
4. Monitors are light and VESA compliant at 100 mm
5. They don't generate much heat at all.
6. No noise, we'll see if that holds up, though I expect it to because the overall build quality is high.

So, that's where I ended up. I have a solid wall of video in front of me now and I like it!

Kevin


----------



## chillbot (Mar 14, 2014)

You may already know this or have tried it but if the text is not as crisp as you think it should be, cables are uber important with monitors. A high-end cable can make a huge difference compared to a mid-to-cheap cable, especially if you're running longer than 6 feet but even with short cables I've noticed a difference.


----------



## LFO (Mar 15, 2014)

Thanks Chillbot. A bit of a controversial topic from what I've seen, but I do buy into the theory (mainly because you can get high end HDMI cables for just a couple of extra bucks) and I purchased good quality cables.

I was fooling around seeing if I could get better text resolution and decided to reset my NVIDIA settings to default. Viola! Nice, crisp text. I don't see how, but I must have changed something that effected text. Now everything looks as crisp as I could ask for.

Kevin


----------



## chillbot (Mar 15, 2014)

Glad you got it worked out. Re: cabling, I can only go off my own experience. My computers have always been in a separate room so I need minimum 15' of cable sometimes longer. A cheap DVI cable compared to a high-end one is night & day for me.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 15, 2014)

chillbot @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> Glad you got it worked out. Re: cabling, I can only go off my own experience. My computers have always been in a separate room so I need minimum 15' of cable sometimes longer. A cheap DVI cable compared to a high-end one is night & day for me.



Chillbot

What's a brand (or model) of high quality HDMI? I haven't even considered this, and if it makes a difference, I'm going to try it. I believe my text should be sharper on my HP LP2475. I'm using a cheepo cable I'm pretty sure.

Thanks,
Mahlon


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Mar 15, 2014)

Expensive HDMI cables, especially at short lengths, are nonsense. 

http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-difference-between-cheap-and-expensive-hdmi-cables/ (http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-dif ... mi-cables/)


----------



## chillbot (Mar 15, 2014)

To be honest I haven't noticed a difference with HDMI though I have never bought super cheap cables. When I redid my studio recently I used all BlueRigger cables (available at amazon.com... they are pretty inexpensive but not dirt cheap) and the signal looks very sharp to me. But I don't use HDMI for computers just for direct tv, dvd, security cameras, etc. I ran up to 50' cables through the walls with no issues.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 15, 2014)

wilx @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> Expensive HDMI cables, especially at short lengths, are nonsense.
> 
> http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-difference-between-cheap-and-expensive-hdmi-cables/ (http://www.tested.com/tech/3329-the-dif ... mi-cables/)


Ahhh, thanks for the link.



chillbot @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> To be honest I haven't noticed a difference with HDMI though I have never bought super cheap cables. When I redid my studio recently I used all BlueRigger cables.


I think when I bought mine they were dirt cheap. But maybe I have another issue going on with my monitor. Or maybe with retina displays and all, I'm used to seeing higher res and now 1980 at 2.75 feet looks low res.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2014)

I don't know about current video cards, but the only way to extend the 30" Cinema Display from my 2008 Mac is to use an expensive Geffen box. It's not a matter of cheap DVI-D cable (not DVI, dual-link DVI), it's that it doesn't work if you don't use the box to regenerate the signal. You get flashing pixels all over the place.

HDMI and MiniDisplayPort are probably better standards, and they carry audio as well.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Mar 15, 2014)

JFK @ Fri Mar 14 said:


> a PQ321Q @ 3840x2160 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DJ4BIKA/?tag=pcpapi-20



NICE! :D


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 15, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 15 said:


> I don't know about current video cards, but the only way to extend the 30" Cinema Display from my 2008 Mac is to use an expensive Geffen box.


Not so. 

My 2008 Mac Pro running an NVidia 8800 graphics card has two 20 ft cable going to my 30-inch Dell monitor and a second 24-inch and I've never had any display issues. Its worked like a charm for years.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 16, 2014)

Has anyone moved from a 27 inch 1920 x 1080 to a 28 inch 3840 x 2160? Only traveling up one inch diagonally but so much in pixels, I wonder (without windows magnification) how tiny Cubase might look.

Has anyone gone this route. I know the 28's are pretty new.

Mahlon


----------



## rgames (Mar 16, 2014)

Mahlon @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> Has anyone moved from a 27 inch 1920 x 1080 to a 28 inch 3840 x 2160? Only traveling up one inch diagonally but so much in pixels, I wonder (without windows magnification) how tiny Cubase might look.
> 
> Has anyone gone this route. I know the 28's are pretty new.
> 
> Mahlon


That's a good question - I imagine it must be *really* tiny, especially for things like Kontakt libraries, many of which have UI's that are already pretty tiny at 1920x1080. At some point the software developers are going to have to make scalable UI's.

One thing that bugs me about newer monitors is the move away from 1920x1200. Those extra 120 vertical pixels really make a difference - whenever I go from my desktop to my laptop, I feel the visual squeeze.

rgames


----------



## chillbot (Mar 16, 2014)

Well the thing about going up to that many pixels is you can always go back down if you don't like it. No reason you must use the maximum resolution.

In my mind (using Sonar) pixels are the equivalent of solid gold. I wish I could run at 10k x 10k. Never enough screen space.

Must include my unsolicited advice though: the higher you go up in pixels, please invest in a good monitor arm so that you can comfortably position your monitors in front of you. You shouldn't have to strain to see them. In my case, I almost imperceptibly hunched forward for years and years, pinching the nerves in my arms and developing mad carpal tunnel. Investing in a couple of arms to position my monitors *over* my midi keyboard instead of behind it helped so much but it was too little too late...


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Mar 16, 2014)

I have 2 dell monitors that are about 7-8 years old. I need to update them. Do you guys find that your newer monitors put out significantly less heat? 

Colin


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 16, 2014)

rgames @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> One thing that bugs me about newer monitors is the move away from 1920x1200. Those extra 120 vertical pixels really make a difference - whenever I go from my desktop to my laptop, I feel the visual squeeze.
> 
> rgames



I agree. Right now I'm using 1920 x 1200 with my HP LP2475. I feel the squeeze if I work on a 16:9 screen. But I sure would like to try 3840 x 2160. That would help so much with jumpy window scrolling in the Cubase Key Editor because I probably wouldn't have to scroll. If elements are big enough to see.

@Chill

I have three Ergotron arms which hold my monitors. "Sitting at my keyboard ergonomic" are a kind of crusade of mine. So much so that I've rebuilt my desk (over the last 15 years) a total of 4 times. I'm about to rebuild it a 5th. This time I think I've got it the way I want it. :D Actually that would be an interested thread to start - ergonomics of your desk and keyboard placement, controllers, etc.

Mahlon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2014)

I wrote:



> I don't know about current video cards, but the only way to extend the 30" Cinema Display from my 2008 Mac is to use an expensive Geffen box.



Synergy points out that I'm a total idiot:



> Not so.
> 
> My 2008 Mac Pro running an NVidia 8800 graphics card has two 20 ft cable going to my 30-inch Dell monitor and a second 24-inch and I've never had any display issues. Its worked like a charm for years.



Then maybe it's only the Apple monitor, or maybe the Radeon card. Are you running 2560 x 1600 on DVI-D?

This isn't just me - I know other people who had to buy the Geffen box.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 16, 2014)

@ Collin: yes for sure. I have 2 Dell 30" that are maybe 5 years old and they emit so much f-ing heat it's like sitting in front of a furnace. I just bought a Dell 30" a month ago for over my mixers and no heat at all.

@ Mahlon: makes me happy you are into ergonomics, they are a lifesaver. I also live and swear by these:

http://www.ergorest.fi/en/forearm_support/

Full range of movement while still supporting your arms 100%.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 16, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> Then maybe it's only the Apple monitor, or maybe the Radeon card. Are you running 2560 x 1600 on DVI-D?.


Yes, I'm running a 30-inch Dell at 2560 x 1600 on a 20 ft DVI-D (Dual Link) cable.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> This isn't just me - I know other people who had to buy the Geffen box.


Yes, I remember I almost bought a Geffen box because the cable I had wasn't working. Then my son looked at it and said I was using the wrong flavor of DVD (apparently there are several) so he bought the right cable for me and...voila it worked! And since its a digital signal, there's no degradation.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 17, 2014)

synergy543 @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> And since its a digital signal, there's no degradation.



I'm assuming you meant to write DVI not DVD...

I don't know if "degradation" is the right word, but I have experienced what I guess I would call a *bad* cable then.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 17, 2014)

chillbot @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> synergy543 @ Sun Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > And since its a digital signal, there's no degradation.
> ...


I wrote DVI-D (Dual Link)



chillbot @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> I don't know if "degradation" is the right word, but I have experienced what I guess I would call a *bad* cable then.


Digital signals just work or they don't. There's really no fuzzy gray area.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 17, 2014)

Colin O'Malley @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> I have 2 dell monitors that are about 7-8 years old. I need to update them. Do you guys find that your newer monitors put out significantly less heat?
> 
> Colin



Colin,

I would think that the larger monitors probably still do put out a lot of heat. Maybe monitors with an external power supply run cooler? Panel type may have something to do with it, as well. So, sorry, I just don't know.

The HP 2475 (about 3 years old) puts out quite a lot.

Noise concerns me more though, and it seems I can't find a monitor that doesn't emit some kind of whine. Now, if it emitted some _wine_, well, then.... that would be different wouldn't it, and something I could live with. o-[][]-o 

Mahlon


----------



## LFO (Mar 17, 2014)

The BenQ monitors I just purchased (27 inches) put out very little heat. You will always have some, but I was surprised at how little they put out. I had them on for just over 9 hours on Sunday and was glad to see they don't heat up more over time.

Kevin


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 17, 2014)

chillbot @ Sun Mar 16 said:


> @ Mahlon: makes me happy you are into ergonomics, they are a lifesaver. I also live and swear by these:
> 
> http://www.ergorest.fi/en/forearm_support/
> 
> Full range of movement while still supporting your arms 100%.



Nice find. I could almost use these right now; that's one of the problem areas of my current desk.

I'll post a pic of the new desk when I'm finished in May. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2014)

synergy, I was 100% using the right cable, and so was another forum member here. What's more, both of us tried more than one cable, and the cable I'm using now works with the Gefen box.

We can rule out the cable. That leaves the video card and the monitor. One of them makes a difference.

Edit: Also, Apple could have changed something in a subsequent production run. I bought mine in 2006.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 17, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> synergy, I was 100% using the right cable, and so was another forum member here. What's more, both of us tried more than one cable, and the cable I'm using now works with the Gefen box.
> 
> We can rule out the cable. That leaves the video card and the monitor. One of them makes a difference.
> 
> Edit: Also, Apple could have changed something in a subsequent production run. I bought mine in 2006.



We're surely using different graphics cards as I bought mine in 2008 and had to wait four months for Apple to deliver it due to my ordering the NVidia GeForce 8800 GT with 512M of RAM! The display drivers could easily make a difference. The cables can make a difference too as they can have different resistance and capacitance. 

However, I think this discussion might be obsolete as the next models use Thunderbolt connections so our next problems will be different - how to deal with the spaghetti wires of a ridiculous number of peripheral devices all hooked up to a little can. Bon apétit!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 17, 2014)

I think the most plausible explanation is that it's the strength of the signal the video cards put out. Drivers, nah.

And undoubtedly cables can make a difference, but as I said, the cable I've been using since 2006 works with the retransmitted signal from the Gefen box but not without it.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 17, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Mar 17 said:


> I think the most plausible explanation is that it's the strength of the signal the video cards put out. Drivers, nah.



I meant the hardware driver. But don't poo-poo software video drivers either. When I upgraded to OS X 8.5, I was having many crashes. It turns out they were do to the Apple's sloppy video drivers. I installed the latest NVidia CUDA driver and problem magically disappeared.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 22, 2014)

I just realised something. I have 3 monitors side by side - 2 quite old 22" monitors whose native resolution is 1680x1050, and a 22" running at 1920x1080, Never mind the resolution - these aspect ratios are different (1.6:1 vs 1.77:1). When I feed the 1920 monitor with 1920, there are black bars at the side of the screen.

So I'm thinking about getting something better - size-wise I could fit 3x 23" monitors side by side. But if I got 3x1920x1080 that means I'd get rubbish black side borders between each screen. Why on earth do they make monitors whose native resolution doesn't fill the screen? Any way round it while keeping the resolution? I run my 1920 monitor downscaled to 1680, and this fills it so I get a roughly consistent stretched desktop.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2014)

> don't poo-poo software video drivers either



Oh, I don't. But in this case it's not a driver issue. That wouldn't have been solved by a hardware box that retransmits the signal.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 22, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Mar 22 said:


> So I'm thinking about getting something better - size-wise I could fit 3x 23" monitors side by side. But if I got 3x1920x1080 that means I'd get rubbish black side borders between each screen. Why on earth do they make monitors whose native resolution doesn't fill the screen? Any way round it while keeping the resolution? I run my 1920 monitor downscaled to 1680, and this fills it so I get a roughly consistent stretched desktop.



Why would you get black borders? What's the native res of the 23 inchers?

M


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 22, 2014)

Mahlon @ Sat Mar 22 said:


> Why would you get black borders? What's the native res of the 23 inchers?



Why indeed. 1680x1050 is 1.6:1, whereas 1920x1080 is 1.77:1 (and I have two of each). 1.77:1 is wider... so logically I'd have thought it would be the other way around and I'd see black bands left and right if running 1680x1050 on a 1920 monitor. As it is, I think it stretches 1680 to fill the width artificially. Fine... but why do I see those black bars on its native resolution??

I'll have a play tomorrow. I have 2 cards driving 4 monitors. I think it might be plugged so that each has one monitor set to 1680 and one to 1920, and perhaps its a side effect of mixing aspect ratios on the same cards (was the same on my old rig with Radeons, these are GeForces). If the connectors work out, I'll try repatching so that the 2x1920s are on the same card to see if that fixes it.

All the 23" models are 1920x1080.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2014)

On Macs you can set the resolution (and all the other settings) for each monitor independently, in fact it's usually automatic.

The problem with using two screens with different res is they don't line up when you mouse from one to the other.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 23, 2014)

Ah yeah, now I'm in the studio I remember why I've plugged them how I have - my two 1680 native displays are both VGA connectors so I have to have them on different cards. Both the 1920 displays are the same when set to their native resolution - significant black bands at the sides, and narrow black bands top and bottom.

I really don't get what's going on. My son has a native 1920 display on his single monitor for his computer and it looks great - no black borders.


----------



## Mahlon (Mar 23, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Mar 23 said:


> I really don't get what's going on. My son has a native 1920 display on his single monitor for his computer and it looks great - no black borders.



I don't know. I've never heard of black borders (or had them) when running a monitor at it's native resolution. Or for that matter, any other resolution.

I'd think it has something to do with the video cards.

What video cards are you using? And what monitors?

Mahlon


----------



## Guy Rowland (Mar 23, 2014)

These are GeForce 610s, but it was identical in Radeon 5450s. Monitors are iilymia and Benq.


----------

