# Replaced Dell U2412M displays [picture p3 w Samsung Odyssey G9]



## JohnG (Jan 10, 2022)

Hi all,

I use (mostly) two Dell U2412M displays for composing. I like having two screens, one for notation, one for tracks. I'm running at 1920 x 1200. The other specs of the screens are:

"60.96 cm (24-inch) viewable area display (measured diagonally). 1920 x 1200 resolution, plus full-screen support for lower resolutions."​
Lately, looking at some of the discussions, I am wondering if there is something I'm missing regarding resolution and eye comfort. The displays sit approximately 28-30 inches from my eyes (71-76 cm).

From my 2019 Mac Pro I have Thunderbolt out or two HDMI outs; graphics card is AMD Radeon Pro 580X, with 8GB VRAM. Any suggestions welcome.

Thanks!

John

John


----------



## samphony (Jan 10, 2022)

Hey John. 

You want stay with two screens? Maybe get two newer dell models? 

I can highly recommend any good 4k screen like dell and set it’s resolution to 2560 or 1920 if you prefer. This way you keep everything big on screen but sharper!

I use a 43“ 4k main screen set to 2560 and a second 34“ screen set to the same resolution but it’s non 4k so it is blurry.


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 10, 2022)

I had a U2412M, nice monitors. My ultimate goal is a curved monitor. I said NO WAY at first, though it would look weird, but in fact it keeps your eyes at the same distance when you turn your head. I got one, my wife tried and never gave it back, lol!

If you went to a 34" monitor, you'd have an extra 240 pixels vertically and of course 3440 wide (3440x1440). My wife kept her 24" 1920 x 1080 and uses if off to the side, so I would keep one for maybe the mixer, etc, if you go for the widescreen.

My ultimate goal is 3840x1600 because I have an older 2560x1600 Dell and I LOVE the vertical real estate. Unfortunately that's ahttps://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08PPR6H2B/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_5?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1 (ton more money).

Anyway, just some thoughts!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 10, 2022)

Don't just get a bigger 4k monitor and run it at a lower resolution - that generally ends up more blurry and is a waste of money unless that manufacturer clearly states otherwise and reviews back it up.

Consider monitors with greater contrast and color. I use a single 27" 1440p "photographer" monitor from BenQ. It was $800 about 6 years ago. I can also toggle with one button on the monitor between a dimmer, low blue light setting and full resolution an brightness.

Having a monitor too bright, or too dim, can also impact eye strain. As can glare, depending on the screen type.


----------



## samphony (Jan 10, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Don't just get a bigger 4k monitor and run it at a lower resolution - that generally ends up more blurry and is a waste of money


Sorry this is not true for mac users!
The 43“ screen at 2560 is as sharp as my m1max screen.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 10, 2022)

samphony said:


> Sorry this is not true for mac users!
> The 43“ screen at 2560 is as sharp as my m1max screen.


Has nothing to do with a Mac (computer bits). It has to do with the screen. Even scaling does help.


----------



## samphony (Jan 10, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Has nothing to do with a Mac (computer bits). It has to do with the screen. Even scaling does help.


It is a 4k philips screen set to 2560


----------



## ltmusic (Jan 10, 2022)

Has anyone tried a 5k2k monitor ?


----------



## Hadrondrift (Jan 10, 2022)

Maybe have a look at the ASUS ProArt Series, maybe ASUS ProArt PA278QV. Good colors, great connectivity.

Previously, I had a 24'' @ 1920x1200, too. 4K needs >=32'' to be readable without upscaling in my opinion and age (>50) and starting at these and larger sizes, depending on your viewing distance, you may have to move your head a bit to see everything, which is not ergonomic.

So now I have 27'' @ 2K (2560 x 1440 native)/108 ppi which I consider a sweet spot. This size and resolution I can use without any upscaling and still from my usual viewing distance of about 70 cm. The increase in screen real estate still was very pleasant. It can be small for writing texts, but is nice for working inside the DAW.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 10, 2022)

Hadrondrift said:


> Maybe have a look at the ASUS ProArt Series, maybe ASUS ProArt PA278QV. Good colors, great connectivity.
> 
> Previously, I had a 24'' @ 1920x1200, too. 4K needs >=32'' to be readable without upscaling in my opinion and age (>50) and starting at these and larger sizes, depending on your viewing distance, you may have to move your head a bit to see everything, which is not ergonomic.
> 
> So now I have 27'' @ 2K (2560 x 1440 native)/108 ppi which I consider a sweet spot. This size and resolution I can use without any upscaling and still from my usual viewing distance of about 70 cm. The increase in screen real estate still was very pleasant. It can be small for writing texts, but is nice for working inside the DAW.


Yep. 27" 1440p is my sweet spot, as well. I don't have to scale anything and I sit about 3 feet away (I have glasses, though).


----------



## JohnG (Jan 10, 2022)

All very helpful -- thanks everyone.

Since I'm accustomed to two screens, I am not going to be willing, I fear, to shrink to a single screen unless it's pretty close to 50 inches (diagonal). 

Moreover, my eyes are not as sharp as once upon a time, so the eyesight has to be a factor. I have to wear glasses to read now, and discerning notation from almost a yard / meter away is not as much of a snap as it once was. 

Reading here and other reviews, I am thinking I need more like a 47 or 49 or something like that.

Makes sense?


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 10, 2022)

On a Mac, I've found that 27" 2560x1440 (or 5120x2880, 5k) is also the sweet spot - it's a shame that the only monitor that supports 5k is the very pricey but mediocre LG UltraFine (the joke is that it is just that: ultra "fine"). I have a BenQ SW271 photography/video display (4k, matte screen) that I really like and run in the first of the "more space" resolutions (looks like 2560x1440) but it's probably overkill if it's not in a color-critical role. 

I would probably recommend a pair of nice 27-32" 4k screens, run at whatever resolution feels most comfortable. If the sharpness of your current displays works fine for you, you might also look at an ultrawide 1440p, perhaps paired with a 2560x1440? That would give you 20% more vertical resolution than you currently have (more tracks visible) and a lot more horizontal (6000 pixels vs 3840). The ultrawide by itself would give you the extra vertical resolution, but less horizontal than you currently have. There are also 5120x2160 displays out there, but I don't think I'd go that route, as you'd probably want to run it at a scaled resolution (so things aren't too small), at which point you're gaining sharpness but losing screen real estate compared to where you are now.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 10, 2022)

What about this one? 

Dell UltraSharp U4919DW 49 inch Dual QHD Curved Monitor
Native resolution is 5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz


----------



## JohnG (Jan 10, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> There are also 5120x2160 displays out there, but I don't think I'd go that route, as you'd probably want to run it at a scaled resolution (so things aren't too small), at which point you're gaining sharpness but losing screen real estate compared to where you are now.


Thanks @rnb_2 

I may have to actually get in the car and go look at one -- the nerve of these people!


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 10, 2022)

JohnG said:


> What about this one?
> 
> Dell UltraSharp U4919DW 49 inch Dual QHD Curved Monitor
> Native resolution is 5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz



That's probably as close as you're going to get with a single display that gives tangible benefits with few down sides. It's basically two 24" 2560x1440 displays fused together, but it may still be a little on the small side in practice. Two 27" or 32" 4k, each run in "looks like 2560x1440" mode, would give you the same screen real estate, but with everything a bit bigger and quite a bit sharper.

You might also investigate the LG 5k - the screen itself is very nice (same as the 5k iMac), but the stand and built-in USB hub aren't great. It would be pricey to get two ($1300 each via Apple), though not much more than that 49" Dell, and would give you a true Retina setup - basically, the same screen real estate as that Dell, but with 4x the pixels, so everything will be larger and much sharper. The LG 5ks would also plug directly into the Thunderbolt ports on your Mac Pro.


----------



## aaronventure (Jan 10, 2022)

Gigabyte M27Q has a QHD resolution, IPS panel, 170hz refresh rate, over 99% sRGB coverage and over 97% Adobe RGB. Great calibration out of the box. FreeSync, if you care for that. Decent ergonomics, but no rotation to vertical. It's the best bang for buck right now. 

Alternatively, a single big TV screen. Samsung's Q series is pretty good here. Clear 4:4:4 chroma, decent viewing angles. I have a 43" Q60, don't think I'll ever look back in terms of desktop space. I have an older 25" Dell on the side for the mixer window. Man, so much desktop space. If I were buying now and wanted to splurge more (and had more desk space), I'd go with the new 50" Samsung QN90A. If you had 2 25" monitors, this should be about the same size on your desk, except taller. 

If you can afford that vertical space (doesn't block your center speaker, the window or whatever), that's the best value in my opinion. I use Sizer (with Stream Deck) for blazing fast window management, so working with a single big screen is even better. 

If you have cash to burn, get an LG C1 48" OLED and once it starts showing burn-in artifacts in 3-4 years (assuming you're using it some odd 12 hours a day or so) due to desktop use (static elements), just get a new one. For that money, you'll hardly get better image quality. 

Both of these TVs are 4k and 120 Hz capable. In order to run them beyond 60 Hz at 4K, you'd need an HDMI 2.1-ready card, which would be the latest NVIDIA and AMD cards. If you don't have one, and 60Hz isn't an issue for you, then by all means. If it is, you can't go wrong with two Gigabyte M27Q screens. 

To sum it up: One big 4k screen with another 25" on the side is awesome. Anything other than the LG OLED or Samsung Q series, check Rtings.com whether what you're buying will display text properly up close (4:4:4 chroma, correct subpixel arrangement). 

Cost wise, these two 27" QHD screens will run you a lot less than the mentioned Samsung QN90A or LG CX TVs. For the price that 2 M27Qs are currently obtainable for, you will hardly get nearly the same color accuracy from a TV screen. The M27Q, like all other monitors have displayport as well, meaning they'll turn off when your PC sends the display off command (5 minutes or whatever your power settings are), and won't go into the "signal not found" mode like the TV screens. The 170 Hz refresh rate is much, much more comfortable than 60 Hz on a single big (or even a pair of) screens. 

Two QHD screens: 7.4MP total desktop space. 
One 4K screen: 8.3 MP total desktop space. 

If you don't have an HDMI 2.1 card, I'd go with 2 M27Qs. If you have a third output on your GPU and space, set your old monitor somewhere on the side for parking documents or the mixer window, if that's something you think you'd like. Mine sits on my PC case.


----------



## alcorey (Jan 10, 2022)

JohnG said:


> What about this one?
> 
> Dell UltraSharp U4919DW 49 inch Dual QHD Curved Monitor
> Native resolution is 5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz




I'm looking at that U4919DW Dell also - hard to find in stock - best I've found is Tiger Direct for $1439.
Have you seen it anywhere at a better price in stock?


----------



## davidanthony (Jan 10, 2022)

ltmusic said:


> Has anyone tried a 5k2k monitor ?


I've been using an LG 34BK95U-W on my Windows video workstation and am really enjoying it. I also occasionally plug in a 2016 MacBook Pro to it and while it certainly works, I can't get access to the same resolutions that I can with the PC and text doesn't look nearly as sharp as a result. So definitely make sure that your intended graphics card is capable of fully driving the display if you go this route! 

FWIW, for audio, I still use and prefer a 24" monitor for ProTools with a 50" TV above it when I want to write to picture, but I'm not someone who needs a lot of screen real estate for music and use EUCON/Midi devices for a lot of control.


----------



## ravez (Jan 10, 2022)

i’m really happy with my LG C1, cheap, sharp, perfect colors too if you do graphics as well, but you need space as it’s a 48”. Later this year there is gonna be 42” coming out


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 10, 2022)

JohnG said:


> All very helpful -- thanks everyone.
> 
> Since I'm accustomed to two screens, I am not going to be willing, I fear, to shrink to a single screen unless it's pretty close to 50 inches (diagonal).
> 
> ...


That's where I'm at, eyes not as sharp and need readers in every corner of the universe. But I was wrong about something. Well, half wrong. I have been staying away from 4K monitors because I don't want HUGE real estate with everything so tiny. And that still holds for your main monitor if that's where you run all of your MIDI tracks. I like a 1440 or a 1600 vertical resolution, so a 4K then res'd up by the DAW to match the former size really gives you 1080 that looks amazing like an iPad Pro. No thanks, I'd prefer standard with 1440 or preferably 1600 vertical.

HOWEVER, for a second monitor to plunk your mixer on, I'm converted, a 4K monitor is incredible for that. I got a 27" today that's 3840x2160 and I'm running it at that resolution as my 2nd monitor, for the mixer. Look at the picture, I've got* 34 channels showing at once*. 🤩 And a 4K YouTube video of snow falling in the Alps was just playing and as a monitor, WOW. So I raise half of a white flag, 4K is great for the mixer; huge and clunky and curved at 1600 v is ideal for my main Cubase window, and least for my over-the-hill eyesight.

SO! Here's the dream solution: Get the 49" curved, then plunk a 27" 4K monitor with stand detached propped up in front of you right past your keyboard, for your mixer, and you'll be in visual bliss. Because everyone on here has unlimited budgets, right? 😂 Just having fun, but there's a couple thoughts to chew on. Let us know what you decide!


----------



## JohnG (Jan 11, 2022)

PaulieDC said:


> for a second monitor to plunk your mixer on, I'm converted, a 4K monitor is incredible for that. I got a 27" today that's 3840x2160 and I'm running it at that resolution as my 2nd monitor, for the mixer


That looks great, Paulie. In a way, I have a setup like yours because I have Pro Tools on a separate iMac for mixing. It has a beautiful screen of its own.

Plus, a large TV for seeing picture and even one more (!) screen for PCs that are sample servers.

So I actually have five screens, though the focus right now is on whether to replace the two “main“ ones.

A friend of mine has a 43 inch or thereabouts, so I may borrow it or at least go look.


----------



## Pictus (Jan 11, 2022)

JohnG said:


> What about this one?
> 
> Dell UltraSharp U4919DW 49 inch Dual QHD Curved Monitor
> Native resolution is 5120 x 1440 @ 60Hz



The best place to check








Dell U4919DW Review


The Dell Ultrasharp U4919DW is a good 49" IPS monitor with wide viewing angles, and an excellent Dual QHD resolution. The high native resolution is excellent for...




www.rtings.com






TVs are not good, just a few are flicker free








TV Table Tool







www.rtings.com








Why PWM is bad








Why Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM) is such a headache


Explanation of PWM, when and why it is bad, and possible solutions




www.notebookcheck.net


----------



## JohnG (Jan 11, 2022)

JohnG said:


> A friend of mine has a 43 inch or thereabouts, so I may borrow it or at least go look.


I am borrowing a 43 inch Samsung, apparently a slightly older model than is sold today, model number C43J89x. It looks pretty good when first plugged in, although I haven't read the manual or adjusted it. Colours are not quite what I expected but they are ok, and it may have to do with the age / use of this screen.

I have it scaled for the maximum of "more space" -- it doesn't actually say what that resolution is, but it's pretty decent.

Here's a screen shot:


----------



## JohnG (Jan 11, 2022)

here's a snapshot:


----------



## JohnG (Jan 11, 2022)

This looks like the absolute best one out there, with a correspondingly "best" price:









49" Odyssey Neo G9 DQHD 240Hz 1ms G-Sync Compatible Quantum HDR2000 Curved Gaming Monitor - LS49AG952NNXZA | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 49 inches Odyssey Neo G9 DQHD 240Hz 1ms G-Sync Compatible Quantum HDR2000 Curved Gaming Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com





Samsung 49" Odyssey Neo G9.


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 11, 2022)

JohnG said:


> All very helpful -- thanks everyone.
> 
> Since I'm accustomed to two screens, I am not going to be willing, I fear, to shrink to a single screen unless it's pretty close to 50 inches (diagonal).
> 
> ...


A 43 inch 4k has pretty much the same pixel pitch as 4x 24" 1080p screens, that's why it's a common size for 4k monitors. Its what I have now and definitely wouldn't go back to split screen. I still have a second screen off to the side for infrequently used things, or for YouTube tutorial videos etc.


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 11, 2022)

PaulieDC said:


> HOWEVER, for a second monitor to plunk your mixer on, I'm converted, a 4K monitor is incredible for that. I got a 27" today that's 3840x2160 and I'm running it at that resolution as my 2nd monitor, for the mixer. Look at the picture, I've got* 34 channels showing at once*. 🤩


Well, this shows how stupid I am, my new 4K monitor was on 150% in the photo above in my previous post. Once I changed it to 100%, I had full real 4K and the mixer was displaying nearly 50 channels. WOWWWWW. They are narrow but I control them with a Monogram rotary knob and the FaderPort, so it totally works. Plus the image is so sharp, it's not a problem with text that small. And I can make the faders really tall which i like for some reason. I'll send a photo shortly, just for fun.


----------



## rgames (Jan 11, 2022)

Monitors are one of those things that are really personal preference so the only really useful advice is to buy one that you can return easily.

I had a 34" curved widescreen and I got rid of it after a year or so. It's an inefficient use of space on my desktop and I couldn't tell any difference looking at a curved screen vs. a flat one.

Then I went to a 42" 4k and used that for a week or so. It was just too big - too much head-turning to look around the screen. My monitor distance is about 36".

I finally settled on a 32" 4k from Dell with Windows scaled to 150%. It's nice and sharp and easy to read and not obnoxiously large in my setup. My monitor distance is about 36" to my eyes. Everything I use is eashy to see except for Kontakt... it's really friggin' tiny.

If I were sitting another 18 inches or so from the screen I'd probably go with a 42".

Again, you just gotta try it out and see what feels right.

rgames


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 12, 2022)

+1 to everything rgames just said.

It’s a bit complicated to figure it all out. I have found that I prefer one monitor in front of me and perhaps secondary monitors well to the side or up behind, but most of the time I want to sit with my face facing directly forward, not twisted slightly to the left or right in classic dual monitor. It turns out I rarely use my secondary monitor very often. 

32” 4K need to run in hidpi for clear fonts, as rgames is doing at 150%, I can easily vary the amount depending on the task but I find around 150% to also be quite workable 

The ultra wide monitors, however SHOULD NOT be used in hidpi. They have a much lower ppi density then 32” typical 4K, even if they are marketed as 4K or even 5k. They are wide and have more pixels spread across a bigger area. So basically they are not suitable for hidpi usage. And their native font sizes ona 49” ultra wide are also big and should be fine even for us old guys. But it’s an open question whether you would like the ultra widescreen concept or not. 

I think my next screen will be some kind and f ultra wide 49” but ideally in some future world where we are all running 6k or 8k monitors or perhaps even one ☝️ f these current ones at native resolution but I really like having the flexibility of hidpi resolutions I can change in the fly to suit my needs. I’m quite happy with 32” 4K for now


----------



## JohnG (Jan 12, 2022)

@Dewdman42 == I've looked at ratings but haven't seen hidpi -- what does that stand for?

I'm finding this one hard to resist:









49" Odyssey Neo G9 DQHD 240Hz 1ms G-Sync Compatible Quantum HDR2000 Curved Gaming Monitor - LS49AG952NNXZA | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 49 inches Odyssey Neo G9 DQHD 240Hz 1ms G-Sync Compatible Quantum HDR2000 Curved Gaming Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com





But this one below is almost $1k less expensive and, for music, maybe it's just as good:









49 inch CRG9 Dual QHD Curved QLED Gaming Monitor Monitors - LC49RG90SSNXZA | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 49 inches CRG9 Dual QHD Curved QLED Gaming Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com





Only question I guess is whether the QLED screen will suffer burn-in from the Mac Pro's dock.

in between is the Dell, and maybe it's the best choice overall:


----------



## alcorey (Jan 12, 2022)

JohnG said:


> @Dewdman42 == I've looked at ratings but haven't seen hidpi -- what does that stand for?
> 
> I'm finding this one hard to resist:
> 
> ...



I imagine you know this, but in case you don't, the dock can be hidden to where it only pops out when you move your cursor close to it


----------



## JohnG (Jan 12, 2022)

alcorey said:


> I imagine you know this, but in case you don't, the dock can be hidden to where it only pops out when you move your cursor close to it


yes that is true, but there are still menu items and the time / date across the top. IDK if burn-in is still the problem it once was or if it's been somewhat solved.

The Dell, which is in between, is looking like the best call now, I think.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 12, 2022)

I bought this: DELL U4320Q and uses 3200 x 1800 on a Mac Pro 6.1 with Firepro D500. It is without doubt the best monitor I ever had. Crisp and realistic colors. I was best or at least among the best rated monitors a couple of years back.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 12, 2022)

stigc56 said:


> I bought this: DELL U4320Q and uses 3200 x 1800 on a Mac Pro 6.1 with Firepro D500. It is without doubt the best monitor I ever had. Crisp and realistic colors. I was best or at least among the best rated monitors a couple of years back.


That looks like a great resolution, @stigc56. The one I am looking at is 5120 x 1440 at 60Hz (the Dell UltraSharp U4919DW)


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 12, 2022)

JohnG said:


> @Dewdman42 == I've looked at ratings but haven't seen hidpi -- what does that stand for?
> 
> I'm finding this one hard to resist:
> 
> ...





JohnG said:


> yes that is true, but there are still menu items and the time / date across the top. IDK if burn-in is still the problem it once was or if it's been somewhat solved.
> 
> The Dell, which is in between, is looking like the best call now, I think.


Burn-in is more of a concern for OLED, where people have issues with video game interface elements burning in after playing for a few hours - I haven't heard about it being a particular issue for QLED. I know that I get a bit on my 27" 4k BenQ LED, mostly the parts of the menu bar that don't change (Apple menu, etc), but not so much the text, as that changes from app to app. It isn't much of a concern, as those elements are almost always there, and when they aren't, the burn-in is only visible on a flat white/light grey screen, which I don't deal with very often.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 12, 2022)

JohnG said:


> That looks like a great resolution, @stigc56. The one I am looking at is 5120 x 1440 at 60Hz (the Dell UltraSharp U4919DW)


I found the 1440 wasn't enough, when I tried a curved model some years back, I got tired in my eyes, and I had to scroll up and down all the time.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 12, 2022)

@JohnG Keep in mind that Windows users (here and in other similar topics) tend to say that 4k displays make things too hard to read at "normal" display sizes (27-32" 16:9), so they have, in many cases, stayed with lower resolution computer monitors combined with 4k TVs. This is not an issue on the Mac because Apple and Microsoft handle high resolution screens differently - 4k/5k computer monitors typically decrease eyestrain on the Mac side by making text sharper without making it smaller. You can run a 4k/5k screen at higher than the default via Displays preferences, of course - this will decrease the size of icons and text, so where the best balance is will vary by user.

EDIT - handling of hidpi screens between Windows and macOS is apparently similar (200% on Windows should do pretty much what default "Retina" does on Mac), which makes this split more of a mystery to me. Is it something in the explanation of the feature? Is there something technical that explains it?


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 12, 2022)

John, I'd be a bit concerned about the vertical resolution of only 1440. I'm using a Dell 32 inch 4K (DELL UP3214Q) scaled up to 3008 x 1692 (as I have hold eyes), and I would not want less vertical resolution than this. 1692 pixel height is my "minimum" otherwise it's too hard to view large scores and a full DAW screen. The nice thing about my 4K screen is I can view the scaled resolution for reading and then quickly just bump down the scaling to view a full-size orchestral score (at 3360 x 1890 - its possible to go to 3840 x 2160 but everything gets too tiny on this sized screen for my eyes). The flexibility to switch resolutions is great for old eyes that want to view larger scores as well as to read.

The problem with getting a larger monitor is that it encroaches upon the direct audio path from your speakers to your ears (and your eye balls really have to roll around to see the whole 43 inches or whatever massive size it is). So it's a fine balance with delicate trade-offs. My speakers are raised up and pointed downward so there is no obstruction of the tweeter path and my screen is just about 18 inches high. Anything higher and it would be an obstacle for the speaker's direct path. I cannot lower the monitor as the lower section would then be below my keyboard. I suppose tilting it back could be an option but you'd need a special mount.

I also have a 27-inch monitor on the side so I can stretch out mixers when needed and display plugins and such. Ideally, you'd want two monitors with the same resolution. For me, I'd stick with the 32-inch 4K monitors as being the best compromise for both vision and clear audio monitoring.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

I confused this thread with another one and posted some related comments on that other thread...but let me try to respond more directly.

First... Regarding the "gaming" monitor. One thing to keep in mind is that gaming monitors are heavily designed for very fast refresh rates rather then actual sharpness and colors. that isn't to say necessarily that they don't have superb colors and sharpness, you have to read the reviews to find out, but generally, their emphasis will be on fast refresh rates. And you'll likely be paying a premium for that as well.

Business class monitors are really the ideal for us. I would say that perhaps even monitors designed primarily for photography or video work could be good also, but anyway you basically have to read the reviews of every single monitor to find out about all that, but I personally like business class displays myself..and the higher end of the range where they could be pretty good for photography work or video work, but a truly discerning photographer might hymn and haw and say there are better displays with truer colors, etc.. ok fine...but we really don't need that either. For what we do, what we want more than anything are very crisp and clear lines and fonts. And I personally like excellent colors and excellent black levels and contrast, because that ends up easier on the eyes when properly setup. That's just me.

A gaming display may or may not have the absolute crisp lines and fonts (read the reviews), but generally their emphasis will be on frame rate, which is not an issue for us in DAW work, and not even for watching videos at 30fps.




JohnG said:


> @Dewdman42 == I've looked at ratings but haven't seen hidpi -- what does that stand for?



HiDPI is hard to explain, I would have to write a long post to explain it. Google for more info about that. its built into both Windows and MacOS. Apple made use of this tech ever since it started coming out with its Retina displays. suffice it to say that it makes everything smoother and nicer. It provides a lot of options to use different scaled resolutions with much less jaggies then if you were just simply scaling the resolution without HiDPI. With a 32" 4k monitor (or 5k or whatever) you definitely want to find out how to use HiDPI..trust me you will love it.

I highly recommend a software product called SwitchResX for setting up multiple HiDPI resolutions that you can easily switch between on the fly depending on your task.

Note however that the Ultra-wide screens, which are often labeled as 4k or 5k, they do not have enough pixel density to use HiDPI. So if you get an ultra wide like the 49" you are considering, then you will not be using HiDPI. The key to using HiDPI is when you get a monitor that has a PPI spec higher than about 120 ppi, then its a candidate for using HiDPI and without HiDPI, that monitor's fonts would also simply look too small.

This calculator may be helpful: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

The 32" 4k monitors at 3480x2160 have a PPI roughly around 130 ppi, which generally if you run it at its native unscaled resolution, the fonts will all be just too darn small. You can scale it without HiDPI, but there will be unsatisfactory jaggies. if you use HiDPI to scale it to a lower display resolultion, then all the lines, fonts and curves will be intelligently filled in so that you won't see jaggies. that's mainly why Retina displays look so darn good. They have a very high hardware PPI, even higher then 130 ppi actually. But the HiDPI tech basically scales things to a high density monitor much better...so you can scale that monitor down to something like 3008x1692 and it will have fonts that are big enough to read quite well without nearly as much jaggies as you'd get by scaling it down without HiDPI.

The old Apple 30" Cinema Display had a PPI density of around 100 ppi. if you generally liked the size of fonts on that monitor, then that would be the native hardware pixel density that would get it. Most likely the 49" ultra wide you are talking about has a pixel density close to that... The Dell you mentioned, which is a very good one by the way, has a 5120x1440 with ppi = 108. I personally feel that is still in the range of decent sized fonts. 110 ppi is about as high as I can go before starting to squint too much. But anyway, the point is, that monitor does not have a dense enough pixel density to even use HiDPI at all. You would need something more like 120 or 130+ of pixel density before you can realistically use HiDPI tech to scale things down in a nice way. But...there is not going to be any need to scale down the Dell 49, it already has a good font size in general.

The downside of that, is that you won't really have the option of scaling it up or down on the fly using HiDPI, like you would be able to do with a 32" 4k or 5k display. with those, you can use HiDPI and choose form a dozen different resolutions depending on your task at the moment.

I personally will probably have an ultra-wide eventually..I like the concept, but I would mount it lower and angled back so that I almost look down on it..and can look over the top of it at a bigger monitor on the back well. Don't forget audio monitor placement also where will they go with an ultra wide?

But we will not have those big ultra-wides with HiDPI capabilities really until some more years go by, current hardware is just not really there yet. We will need 6k or even 8k monitors with appropriate GPU's, etc.. and that is somewhat possible for big bucks, now, but hardly worth it for what we do right now. All that would require more CPU use too, so its a diminishing return after a point; It may be a while before its common place to have that much graphics power in a desktop..I personally think 5k will be it for a while... which means...large ultra wides will simply not be able to use HiDPI anytime soon.





JohnG said:


> I'm finding this one hard to resist:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When I was looking into this a year ago, I liked the Dell a lot. There is another 49" ultra wide I seem to recall which also had high reviews, but I don't remember the details now. each year there is new stuff, so you will have to let us know what you end up with.

I think its a highly personal decision about whether to use a single monitor or dual main monitors or an ultra-wide, etc. I personally don't like looking at a screen off center. I want my primary monitor directly in front of me so my neck is neutral and not turned to the side most of the time. That's my personal choice. When you go to bigger dual monitors, you'll have to worry about your audio monitor placement and more side to side turning...and maybe that is the case with ultra-wide too. I tend to think 1440 is also not quite enough vertical space, as someone else already said. I personally am using 32" 4k with HiDPI scaling options...and most of the time its running at 3008x1692 HiDPI mode...which has an effect ppi of 108 ppi (exactly same font size as the 49" ultra wide), but note that it has more vertical space...and I still have the option to rescale the display to various different HiDPI resolutions. I think I probably still prefer this...

The only thing is that if I had an ultra wide, I feel like I could mount it lower and angled back and look over the top of it at a monitor on the back wall easier...so I am thinking about that setup in the future maybe. But I also really like the HiDPI options of having a dozen different nice looking resolutions to choose on the fly.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 13, 2022)

Awesome post, @Dewdman42 . Thank you. You’ve been kind to help winnow the actually useful information from the barrage of stats and hype. Thanks also to @stigc56 , @rnb_2 , @d.healey , @3CPU , @rgames , @aaronventure , @Nick Batzdorf , @alcorey and others.

According to Nick’s calculator, the ones I’ve been looking at online all have a 108 ppi. There are two or three 49 inch Samsungs and the Dell, each 5120 x 1440.

I hear those who are urging two smaller screens but I’m kinda tired of that setup. The big, wide, curved surface of this borrowed Samsung is just great, and has five different zoom settings built in.

Certainly agree with @rgames that returnability is key. That said, I haven’t found a local retailer that’s stocking these really large screens, so may have to look at “free returns” online.

Thanks again everyone. @alcorey I am not sure if I’ve found any of those Dell models actually in stock. The prices bounce around all over.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

which samsung are you borrowing?


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

Check out the first on this list also, its not as wide as the Samsumg Neo thing...but there are some interesting advantages about it, except I don't like the poor contrast...but I like the form factor a lot.









The 5 Best Ultrawide Monitors - Fall 2022: Reviews


The best ultrawide monitor we've tested is the Dell Alienware AW3423DW. It's a 34-inch, 3440x1440 monitor that's great for a variety of uses, whether you need it for watching movies, gaming, or browsing the web.




www.rtings.com


----------



## 3CPU (Jan 13, 2022)

@ JohnG, wish you the very best. Yeah, I also got tired of the two screen setup and now use the one larger screen, I hardly bother with the other smaller display, I might move that to the kitchen.


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 13, 2022)

@JohnG - one more that just came via email this morning, appears to be an Adorama exclusive at the moment. The ability to change the arrangement of the displays independently may or may not be useful to you, but it would give you the same number of pixels (5120x1440) as the curved displays you're looking at, though with 27" displays instead of ~24" equivalent with the curved models (and comes in at $799, so a lot cheaper).

I can certainly understand the attraction of the curved displays in your position, but I'd be wary of that new Samsung, just because you're going to pay an awful lot for features that you're really not looking for, and likely won't use. That's really a VERY high end gaming display (complete with the colored lighting coming out the back).


----------



## JohnG (Jan 13, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> which samsung are you borrowing?


Samsung CJ890 — 43” curved.









43" CJ890 Super Ultra-Wide Curved Monitor Monitors - LC43J890DKNXZA | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 43 inches CJ890 Super Ultra-Wide Curved Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 13, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> I confused this thread with another one and posted some related comments on that other thread...but let me try to respond more directly.
> 
> First... Regarding the "gaming" monitor. One thing to keep in mind is that gaming monitors are heavily designed for very fast refresh rates rather then actual sharpness and colors. that isn't to say necessarily that they don't have superb colors and sharpness, you have to read the reviews to find out, but generally, their emphasis will be on fast refresh rates. And you'll likely be paying a premium for that as well.
> 
> ...


Great, informative post - thanks! One note, though - if you're running on a Mac in a Retina/HiDPI mode, you should either halve the actual resolution of the panel, or use the "looks like" resolution from the Displays preferences to do your calculation.

Since my 4k 27" BenQ is emulating 5120x2880, my effective DPI is ~217, or "looks like" 108.5 (so right on the mark for your calculations). This isn't surprising, since Apple has historically kept the DPI of its displays pretty consistent (higher on laptops because of the closer viewing distance, though), and the 27" iMac has had either 2560x1440 (pre-Retina) or 5120x2880 (5k), and I'm emulating the latter on a lower-resolution panel. This is why I don't run SwitchResX or similar: my display is already running at it's "ideal" emulated resolution.

This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 13, 2022)

I can’t actually find the Dell in stock, so I think I may be down to choosing between these two:

Samsung Odyssey G9 and its replacement…
….Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, which costs quite a bit more. 

It’s really hard to judge, without using both, whether the new version, the Neo, offers a meaningful benefit to composers, although its contrast (“much better local dimming” in the review) is noticeably better, at least in the comparison on rtings.com . This apparently is down to the Neo using a different technology (mini-LED) versus the QLED

Both get very good reviews on rtings.com; the second one has better contrast. From rtings:

”The Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 replaces the Samsung Odyssey G9 and upgrades in a few ways. The major difference is that the Neo G9 has Mini LED backlighting, so it gets brighter and has much better local dimming. It also has HDMI 2.1 inputs, while the G9 has HDMI 2.0, so you can achieve a higher refresh rate over HDMI on the Neo G9. The G9 has slightly better response times, but it's not really a noticeable difference.”

Here’s another comparison:








Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 vs Odyssey G9: What are the Key Differences?


Samsung’s been an innovator in the monitor sphere for years now, pushing the boundaries of both professional and gaming monitors. Offering monitors across the spectrum of budgets, their best work comes at the high-end. While offering some of the most expensive monitors we’ve ever seen, Samsung’s...




premiumbuilds.com


----------



## rnb_2 (Jan 13, 2022)

JohnG said:


> I can’t actually find the Dell in stock, so I think I may be down to choosing between these two:
> 
> Samsung Odyssey G9 and its replacement…
> ….Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, which costs quite a bit more.
> ...


For a composer, I don't see Mini LED being worth the extra ~$1k. It's the kind of thing that has benefits for media playback and gaming, but wouldn't be noticeable in a DAW or other desktop software.

Basically, instead of the entire display being lit by a uniform LED backlight, which creates "black" by blocking off the light as much as possible, Mini LED divides the screen into multiple zones (I think it's around 2000 on the Samsung Neo) and can then light up each zone as needed - a black zone would get no light, white zones would light fully, and colors/brightness levels in between could be handled in a much more granular way. This still can't match OLED, which lights up each pixel individually (so over 8 million "zones" on a 4k display), but is even more expensive.

In your DAW, you're just not going to have zones with that much difference in brightness.


----------



## stigc56 (Jan 13, 2022)

I use my Dell 43” in the middle, a 32” to the right for mixer and so, and a smaller to the left rotated to fit a scorepage. I also uses 3 desktops and always have my DAW on desktop 1.
I think its by far the best setup I’ve had ever.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> Great, informative post - thanks! One note, though - if you're running on a Mac in a Retina/HiDPI mode, you should either halve the actual resolution of the panel, or use the "looks like" resolution from the Displays preferences to do your calculation.
> 
> Since my 4k 27" BenQ is emulating 5120x2880, my effective DPI is ~217, or "looks like" 108.5 (so right on the mark for your calculations). This isn't surprising, since Apple has historically kept the DPI of its displays pretty consistent (higher on laptops because of the closer viewing distance, though), and the 27" iMac has had either 2560x1440 (pre-Retina) or 5120x2880 (5k), and I'm emulating the latter on a lower-resolution panel. This is why I don't run SwitchResX or similar: my display is already running at it's "ideal" emulated resolution.
> 
> This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.


Well macos hides the details, but with switchresX you have more control to get exactly what you want. As you are pointing out, Apples default resolution is half of the actual hardware resolution. That is definitely going to get you the beautiful appearance you see on apple retina displays. let's call that 200% scaling for parity with the MS Windows approach to HiDPI. However the system preferences also provide a way to use higher virtual resolutions, which they don't tell you exactly what they are, but they are basically something like 150%, and few other possibilities.

If you hold down the option key while selected scaled resolution, you can usually pick from a list of predefined HiDPI resolutions, even more then what is available from the normal friendly icon oriented list. With SwitchResX you can add virtually any HiDPI resolution you want. In my experience, it doesn't look quite as nice as full 200% HiDPI scaling.. But on my 32" 4k monitor I find it quite unsatisfying to use only 1920x1080 hiDPI resolution. Meanwhile using 150% scaling is still very very good and provides 2560x1440 which is much more usable. But I also feel that there are a variety of resolutions between 2560x1440 and 3200x1800 which are all pretty darn good. No they are not as good as Apple's lovely retina. You can use a MBP or iMac with a smaller display and 200% scaling and its truly beautiful, but if you want a bigger display its much more difficult, you would need a 6k monitor like Apple's new expensive one, and a correspondingly powerful GPU to achieve it. So you have to decide if you want the gorgeous Apple retina look but less desktop...or go for say 120-150% scaling and it will still look very very good...better scaling then without HiDPI...and have much more usable desktop space.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Jan 13, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.


Yes. The Pro Display XDR would be fantastic of course, but I can't afford it and what I'm running still gives me pleasure every day its so much nicer then displays of the past.

6k is needed really for the XDR and a GPU that can do 6k. And a mac that can handle a 6k GPU card..hehe.. Let's not even talk about 8k which tends to require two cards. The amount of bandwidth needed for 8k starts to impact throughput on the PCI bus as well. it starts to be a diminishing and expensive return both in terms of $$ cost as well as processing cost. I mean how bad do we really need the beautiful Retina look after all? Some day it will be common place and hard to believe we ever used less, but I think its years away. For that look you need to be using either the XDR on a system that can support it...or else use a smaller 27" or smaller monitor probably running at 2560x1440.

The possibility of using an UltraWide monitor with 5k of desktop points..would mean what..10k pixel hardware? We aren't going to be there any time soon.

Anyway, the moral of the story is.. 

if you lust after the "retina" look use a 27" monitor or smaller at 4k, or 5k hardware resolution. That will probably end up 2560x1440 desktop points.


If you want an ultra-wide panel to run at native resolution, no HiDPI at all


for a 4k or 5k non-ultra-wide monitor, you should use HiDPI, and probably in scaling between 120-150%, to achieve normal font sizes and best possible scaling.


----------



## Thomas Costantino (Jan 13, 2022)

Been happy with my new Lenovo 30 inch so far. I tired out an awesome Samsung 30 inch- great picture and nice adjustment features, but got many green pixelation failures and it glitches out a lot. Could have been a fault with that single monitor, but I didn’t want to chance it. Went back and decided to go with the Lenovo. It’s a beautiful picture but not much adjustment features.

I put a ton of time into gauging the best picture with deep colors and with least amount of glare. Gloss finish picture is the most vivid by far, but the slightest bit of background light will expose your reflection in the screen. I’d stay with a flat mat finish.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 14, 2022)

Ok. Ordered the Samsung 49 inch Odyssey G9 -- not the "Neo" version, which costs quite a bit more and, as others have speculated, doesn't on the face of it appear to offer anything meaningful to us composers.

I will report back when it arrives.

Thank you so much everyone for your advice, points of view, and recommendations. This is the kind of thread that I am so grateful for around here.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## JonS (Jan 15, 2022)

JohnG said:


> That looks like a great resolution, @stigc56. The one I am looking at is 5120 x 1440 at 60Hz (the Dell UltraSharp U4919DW)


Acer Nitro XV431C 43.8" DFHD 3840 x 1080


----------



## JohnG (Jan 20, 2022)

Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others wrote above, however, I decided against paying 160% for a very marginally better picture; "better picture" is not really the priority for a DAW / notation computer monitor.

So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the newer "Neo" version a bit. On the one I have, I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me. 

I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 20, 2022)

JohnG said:


> Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others speculated above, however, I decided paying 160% for a very marginally better picture was overkill for a DAW / notation computer monitor.
> 
> So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the "Neo" version a bit. I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me.
> 
> I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.


Awesome choice. No, I'm not jealous, really... 

And you are correct, iPhones aren't stellar in dealing with pincushion distortion. If you want to post a more accurate shot, don't point down, instead sit in your chair and shoot it eye-level, making sure the phone is parallel with the monitor, not tilted forward or back. When you get the angle right, your walls will be straight.

I guess that's one takeaway from shooting real estate for 9 years, lol...


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jan 21, 2022)

Mondo jelly. A 49” ultrawide is my ideal setup. Seek out window management software that allows you to easily configure and partition the screen into multiple zones, you’ll find using them way easier if the size of the screen ever feels unwieldy.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 27, 2022)

JohnG said:


> Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others wrote above, however, I decided against paying 160% for a very marginally better picture; "better picture" is not really the priority for a DAW / notation computer monitor.
> 
> So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the newer "Neo" version a bit. On the one I have, I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me.
> 
> I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.


Looks great John, congrats! I'm zeroing in on what to get and that one is in the finals. I haven't much leeway space-wise if it's going to fit the set up I like in my room. I wonder if you get a chance if could you tell me what the full depth is back to front? From the very back of the stand to the point where the edges of the monitors reach their most forward point? Measured straight back to front, not sideways? Though full side to side measurement would be lovely as well.

I am willing to pay for this information in liquor, ham sandwiches or treat of choice, free delivery.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2022)




----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2022)

I think these measurements are probably the closest to what you're seeking, @Soundhound 

I definitely don't regret passing over the (more-expensive) "Neo" version of the screen.

Here's the URL: https://www.samsung.com/us/computin...g90-qled-gaming-monitor-lc49hg90dmnxza/#specs


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 28, 2022)

Thank you @_JohnG. _I found that last night when I should have been sleeping. 😂 sorry to bother you with it, thanks for posting it. 

How are you liking the curvature for working? is it comfortable, feel not too curved? some older models have a more gentle 1800r curvature… 

I’m also wondering if it’s going to block the speakers as i have them now, seems a close call, could be okay maybe just wind up with more reflections against the back of the monitor. it could also get me to finally pull the desk back from the windows and put the speakers on stands which i’ve been avoiding for about a decade.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2022)

Soundhound said:


> some older models have a more gentle 1800r curvature…


this one does too. It's on the specs page.

As far as the rest of your questions, alas I can't advise. It's a very wide screen, for sure, so you want to get out the old tape measure to be sure it will fit your needs.

Alternatively you could get speaker stands.

By the way, if you're in an extremely small room, it is possible for the large, curved screen to do some slightly odd things to the music bouncing off the wall behind the composer's back. I don't have that particular problem but one other user mentioned it.


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 28, 2022)

Yes, tape measure is getting a workout. the link you posted went to a model that’s 3840 x 1440 and has so i thought you’d posted it just for the size dimensions. 

looking at the g9 odyssey has t does have the 1000r curve. this the one you got?









49" Odyssey G9 Gaming Monitor Monitors - LC49G97TSSNXDC | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 49 inches Odyssey G9 Gaming Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com


----------



## Soundhound (Jan 29, 2022)

Since you said it has an 1800r curvature, I'm thinking this is the one you have?









49 inch CRG9 Dual QHD Curved QLED Gaming Monitor Monitors - LC49RG90SSNXZA | Samsung US


Discover the latest features and innovations available in the 49 inches CRG9 Dual QHD Curved QLED Gaming Monitor. Find the perfect Monitors for you!




www.samsung.com


----------



## aeliron (Feb 1, 2022)

rgames said:


> ...
> 
> I finally settled on a 32" 4k from Dell with Windows scaled to 150%. It's nice and sharp and easy to read and not obnoxiously large in my setup. My monitor distance is about 36" to my eyes. Everything I use is eashy to see except for Kontakt... it's really friggin' tiny.


Yeah, I've set up my mac to zoom in/out when I three-finger double-tap.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 1, 2022)

Soundhound said:


> Since you said it has an 1800r curvature, I'm thinking this is the one you have?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think so. It's a little confusing as there seem to be two that are either identical or close to it.

Here are the specs that come off my Mac Pro's "system report:"

*LC49G95T:*

Resolution: 5120 x 1440
UI Looks like: 5120 x 1440 @ 60.00Hz
Framebuffer Depth: 30-Bit Color (ARGB2101010)
Display Serial Number: 
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Rotation: Supported
Adapter Type: DVI or HDMI
Automatically Adjust Brightness: Yes
Adapter Firmware Version: 2.19


----------



## Soundhound (Feb 1, 2022)

Ah, okay I think I can tell from that. It says 60hz, but that may be the way it's running currently on your system, the specs say it's 60hz-240hz.

Very confusing! Sorry to bother you with it, and thank you very much for that!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Feb 2, 2022)

Side note (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong): "hidpi" is Apple manufactured marketing-speak for high pixel density screens. Since people bought into the successful marketing, other companies had to start using the word. At least it's better than the weird (dare I say ridiculous?) "retina" marketing.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

No. Hidpi is referring to an actual operating mode you can google to read all about it and it’s not only on apple computers though apple implemented it particularly well.

Retina is an apple marketing term for sure but it actually does refer to a specific benchmark or standard that they labeled that way. Specifically there is a certain pixel density at which the human eye is capable of detecting the individual pixels. This density depends on distance too. Human eyes are very consistent in this regard as it has to do with the size of our biological lense. So an iPhone for example needs a denser pixel density then say your tv across the room to obscure our perception of pixels. At any given distance there is an exact pixel density which is dense enough to obscure the pixels for most human beings. You can google to find out the formula for calculating that.

Apple uses the marketing term “retina” to refer only to monitors with pixel density large enough that no humans will detect the pixels at its Intended typical viewing distance. 

So yes they are using it in marketing manner but it is also referring to a specific class of monitors that meet a well defined standard


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Feb 2, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> No. Hidpi is referring to an actual operating mode you can google to read all about it and it’s not only on apple computers


Got it on hidpi. "Retina" remains a silly descriptor of high pixel density screens - I think I've managed to never use it in a verbal conversation. 

(I've worked on software UX for mobile devices since the late '90s, so am aware of the evolution of screens - we just used "high dpi" instead of "hidpi"... looks like it may stem from developers rather than UX designers)


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Got it on hidpi. "Retina" remains a silly descriptor of high pixel density screens - I think I've managed to never use it in a verbal conversation.
> 
> (I've worked on software UX for mobile devices since the late '90s, so am aware of the evolution of screens - we just used "high dpi" instead of "hidpi"... looks like it may stem from developers rather than UX designers)



“Retina” does actually refer to a specific level of quality in order to qualify as being labeled retina. You are calling them “high pixel density screens”, but the word “high” is a relative and imprecise term. Many 4K displays are not qualified to meet apple’s definition of a Retina display


----------



## rnb_2 (Feb 2, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> Many 4K displays are not qualified to meet apple’s definition of a Retina display


I may be mis-remembering on hidpi, but I associate it with the non-Mac market trying to come up with the equivalent of Retina without using Apple's trademark.

We're probably pretty close to "all 4k displays are not qualified" at this point, since the last Apple-branded 4k screen was in the 21.5" iMac (and that was DCI 4k, so 4096 instead of 3840, to get to the 218dpi standard they shoot for on desktop displays). They went to 4.5k for the 24" M1 iMac, but LG's (Mac-directed) 24" UltraFine is still 3840, unfortunately.

This just gets worse with every passing day, since gaming now rules the display market, and even high-end GPUs can't drive anything higher than 4k at 120Hz (or higher). So, we just sit at 4k at ever-larger sizes, getting further and further from Retina-standard. We've actually lost 5k options over the last few years, now that everyone but LG has dropped out - Dell dropped their 5k 27" display and only does 4k now. With gaming driving panel production, producing anything at a resolution that has no gaming application becomes very unattractive, and the attendant price ensures that won't change. Until a GPU comes around that can drive 5k or 6k at 120Hz, we're stuck, even though our needs aren't remotely the same as a gamer's.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Feb 2, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> “Retina” does actually refer to a specific level of quality in order to qualify as being labeled retina. You are calling them “high pixel density screens”, but the word “high” is a relative and inaccurate term. Many 4K displays are not qualified to meet apple’s definition of a Retina display


Sure it does. But that doesn't make the word a good one - just a silly Apple marketing one. But we're drifting off-topic, so I'll stop commenting on it.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

for a display to qualify as "Retina", it has to have a pixel density that matches or exceeds the required pixel density for its intended viewing distance such that the human eye can't perceive the pixels.

Not all 4k monitors qualify, unless you sit further way then you were probably planning to... it depends on the pixel density and distance. 4k only tells you the overall number of pixels. If that is on a 43" display, for example, then it might not qualify as Retina at a sitting distance of under 3 feet. I'm not sure how far away you'd need to be in order to qualify it as "retina". You can google for the exact math...there is a web based calculator I have seen that can calculate this...

Here is one: https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/

and another: http://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

rnb_2 said:


> I may be mis-remembering on hidpi, but I associate it with the non-Mac market trying to come up with the equivalent of Retina without using Apple's trademark.



When apple started making their branded "Retina" monitors they chose to use HiDPI technology so that fonts will not be too tiny at native resolution. But HiDPI is a seperate thing from Retina, they are not names for the same thing. HiDPI refers to the scaling tech being used....which is also used by Windows and Linux too. Retina monitors are by default using HiDPI operating modes..but they don't have to, you can run an Apple branded Retina monitor at native resolution if you want, but you won't be able to read anything...heheh.. 

Retina branded monitors simply meet a certain specification for pixel density at the expected viewing distance, explained above... Any non-apple monitor can also qualify for that but only Apple is placing an actual name on that qualification...calling it Retina. If you buy an Apple Retina display you will know that its pixel density meets that standard at its expected viewing distance. All other displays are merely quoting their size and resolution (ie, 4k or 5k, etc..)...and its up to you to decide whether or not you will see pixels. Apple is setting a standard that they will ship monitors, labeled as "Retina" which meet that specification when used as intended. 

By the way that's why their 27" monitor is 5k. My own 32" LG monitor is 4k and basically as long as I'm at least 2 feet away from it...I can say its "Retina". If my eyes are closer then 2 feet, its technically not qualified to be on the same standard as apple branded Retina monitors.... It is, however, running in HiDPI mode....which is basically smart scaling....a completely different factor to consider. All monitors can run with or without HiDPI scaling...doesn't matter if they are retina or not...But probably if a monitor is not meeting Retina specs....full hiDPI scaling will seem like all the fonts are "too big"





rnb_2 said:


> This just gets worse with every passing day, since gaming now rules the display market, and even high-end GPUs can't drive anything higher than 4k at 120Hz (or higher). So, we just sit at 4k at ever-larger sizes, getting further and further from Retina-standard. We've actually lost 5k options over the last few years, now that everyone but LG has dropped out - Dell dropped their 5k 27" display and only does 4k now. With gaming driving panel production, producing anything at a resolution that has no gaming application becomes very unattractive, and the attendant price ensures that won't change. Until a GPU comes around that can drive 5k or 6k at 120Hz, we're stuck, even though our needs aren't remotely the same as a gamer's.



yes, there is not much future enhancement to monitors I think for a while. The problem is not the displays, they can make them bigger and bigger no problem, but the GPU's required and the bandwidth required on the GPU's bus....and CPU requirements to process that many pixels starts to become overwhelming when you get over 5k. 6k is pushing it, but probably will become the most we will see for quite a while. Only extremely fast and expensive computers are capable of 8k and its kind of a diminishing return.

it basically means that there is a limit to how big in size monitors can be, without giving up "retina" pixel density. I feel that 32" is about as big as you can go for typical desktop viewing distance. Go any bigger and you have to sit further away to not see pixels. I haven't done the math on the 49 ultra wide screens, they can't even run HiDPI modes really...I am willing to bet they don't qualify as retina either... one sec I'll check...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

so here is the calculation for the G9 monitor JohnG purchased recently, which seems to be the latest greatest ultra wide available at QHD resolution 5120x1440:






In other words, it can only qualify as retina and hide the pixels if your eyes are at least 32" away from the display, nearly 3 feet. I'm sitting here at my desk looking at my own 32" monitor and it is less then 2 feet away I think, its close... around 2 feet is pretty typical. But anyway, if you are 32" away from that monitor I am also willing to bet the fonts will be quite small to read at 108.5ppi. In fact JohnG said so much. Which means he will be leaning in closer then 32" a lot and will see pixels... so it does NOT qualify as retina. It also can't really use HiDPI, because 108.5ppi native resolution is simply not dense enough to ever bother with HiDPI modes. That monitor is intended to be used at native resolution...and whatever size the fonts are...that will dictate how far away the eyes will like it. If its closer then 32", then it cannot be deemed "retina" quality.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

but the above is basically 5k...and so we see, as @rnb_2 already noted, we simply aren't going to be able to get bigger and bigger monitors without giving up both Retina density and HiDPI scaling, until such time our computers can handle 6k+, 8k+ GPU processing.


----------



## rnb_2 (Feb 2, 2022)

Dewdman42 said:


> yes, there is not much future enhancement to monitors I think for a while. The problem is not the displays, they can make them bigger and bigger no problem, but the GPU's required and the bandwidth required on the GPU's bus....and CPU requirements to process that many pixels starts to become overwhelming when you get over 5k. 6k is pushing it, but probably will become the most we will see for quite a while. Only extremely fast and expensive computers are capable of 8k and its kind of a diminishing return.


Good point re: bandwidth, as going above 4k will require new DisplayPort and HDMI standards. Even with Thunderbolt, 6k at 60Hz leaves some available bandwidth for the built-in USB ports on the ProDisplay XDR, but only by using Display Stream Compression, as the raw 32-bit color x resolution x 60Hz comes out to 39Gb/sec, just under the 40Gb/s of Thunderbolt 3 and 4. So we'd need to double Thunderbolt speed to go past 60Hz at 6k, with compression getting some of the bandwidth back for other uses on the same bus.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Feb 2, 2022)

yep. The 2019 Mac Pro is capable on its PCI bus I think of handling 8k by using two GPU's, etc. But anyway, a lot of tech has to advanced before we will go beyond that...and most people will not bother with anything more than 4k or 5k monitors for numerous years into the future IMHO. The size of the monitor will determine whether or not it could qualify as "retina" density...and that will determine whether or not its appropriate to use hiDPI scaling tech.


----------



## creativeforge (Apr 21, 2022)

JohnG said:


> here's a snapshot:


Hi John,

Good to find such detailed info on large screens, I'm also looking into it right now.

Can I ask you what are these reference speakers you are using?

Cheers,

Andre


----------



## JohnG (Apr 21, 2022)

creativeforge said:


> Can I ask you what are these reference speakers you are using?


Hi André,

The speakers are the Dan Wallin Signature Series, the 3-ways, not the 2. They sound amazing with a good amplifier driving them. I found on eBay an old Crown Studio Reference II amp that has the best bass response I've ever heard, but you can't buy them new anymore.


----------

