# A Well Displayed Studio



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Dear all,

After my recent search for lighting in my studio, thank you for all your kind comments and pictures, I am now looking for monitors and the best set-up for me.
Right now, I have one installed, I mainly use cubase, and I have looked at what composers usually use in their studios.

Some composers use only one or two while others will use up to four and more.
For the moment, I will not install a monitor above my desk for films.

If any of you have experience or opinions on this subject, please share it here.

So far, I intend to have 3 or 4 displays, depending on my workflow.

Here is my studio :





And here are some other set-ups from film composers. I personally use only 1 computer and of course, sometimes, multiple computers are involved in the following set-ups hence the several monitors. :

Rachel Portman and Hildur Guðnadóttir have 1 or 2 displays :








3 monitors : Alan Silvestri, Anne-Kathrin Dern,


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

,Thomas Newman :

4 displays or more : James Newton-Howard, Klaus Badelt, Hans, Alexandre Desplat, Pinar Toprak,


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

And Steve Jablonsky, 4 monitors and more :


----------



## d.healey (Apr 8, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> I intend to have 3 or 4 displays, depending on my workflow.


Decide on your workflow then get the monitors to match (don't worry about what other people are using, find what works for you). I used to use two monitors, now I just use one.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Thank You David, I though of that but I'm asking the question here because I'm just starting to dig into cubase and orchestration, that's why learning about other's workflow and experience with their own studio is invaluable to me.


----------



## X-Bassist (Apr 8, 2021)

I use 4 monitors (one is a 75” screen for picture, 2x 32”, 1x 24”) but to be honest if I was going to do it over I would look at a superwide screen, like on the Soundiron videos. They make one that”s even wider, but you have to research into what it takes to run and if your room is wide enough for the screen plus speakers.

Sometimes I don’t use all my screens and the ability to use the whole thing just for Cubase or Pro Tools is nice in bigger sessions. TBH I’ve been waiting for 8k monitors to come down in price so that I can finally move beyond 1080p without tiny fonts or magnification aliasing. Adjusting to custom sizes (I think I would land somewhere between HD and 4K) would allow me to see things well without zooming in.














Electronics & Accessories | Dell USA


Shop Electronics Deals and get huge savings with our Sale on Monitors, Docking Stations, Webcams, Audio & more at Dell.com.




www.dell.com


----------



## chillbot (Apr 8, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Some composers use only one or two while others will use up to four and more.
> For the moment, I will not install a monitor above my desk for films.
> 
> If any of you have experience or opinions on this subject, please share it here.
> ...



Would love to interject my own experience because I've recently had a major revelation about this.

About me: I want ALL THE SCREEN SPACE... I am addicted to screen space I want as much screens and as much resolution as possible, I wish I could wallpaper my walls with screens. And cost is not an issue for me, that is not to brag but to say, screens are that important to me... I would spend whatever it takes to do it right.

Sadly in my 40s my eyesight is also going, I need my readers to see things up close now, which is also an issue.

So I used to have two 30" displays side-by-side, which is rather large and is all that I could fit between my two audio monitors. Besides the fact that there is that tiny gap between them, I made do with it but I wanted more. The issue is, running at whatever resolution I needed (I think 2560 x 1600) I had them on arms situated about 20" in front of my face so I could see everything without leaning forward (posture is everything!). And the issue with that is, even though I thought I had my audio monitors wide enough that the sound was not being impaired, one day I realized that there was a certain frequency I couldn't hear at all due to the video monitors.

Here is the revelation: I went to ONE https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07W6JLYHG (55&quot; monitor) and I have never been happier. Six months later I am still giddy about it, it's so amazing.

Think about the math.... two 30" monitors is 2(27.5" x 15.5") = 852.5 square inches of screens. One 55" monitor is (48" x 27") = 1,296 square inches of screen. An improvement of just over 150%. Because of this I am able to push the monitor back to where it is 30" from my face, and combined with the fact that it is 9" less wide as the previous two, I am no longer (significantly) blocking my audio monitors.

Pixel-wise I went from 2(2560 x 1600) = 8.2M to (3840 x 2160) = 8.3M so a bit of an increase but basically the same. BUT I get to push the screen back, everything looks larger now, and anyone who comes in the studio is always floored by it.

(On a side note I actually have 4 monitors still but they are all clones of the main screen. I have one 30" clone over the mixer, one 30" over the piano for recording, and one 30" in the recording booth, as well as additional keyboards and mice such that I can control the DAW from 4 different locations.)

New 55" looks like this:










OK now for the next part. If you are on Win10 and not familiar with multiple desktops, this was a true game changer for me and my workflow. With ctrl+win+left/right you insta-switch to a brand new desktop, doubling your screen space, or tripling it, or quadrupling it, whatever you need. It's so quick and seamless I'm constantly recording in the DAW while clicking over to check email or vi-c or do other tasks. Also super easy to switch via Stream Deck.

I have mine set up so that window 1 is the DAW, window 2 is divided up between email, surfing the internet (vi-c), discord, and file browsing, and window 3 is the remote desktop for the sample computer. (Which brings the point, no you do not need multiple screens for multiple computers.) I shrank this so as to hopefully not give away my secrets but it looks roughly like this:






As for video, I can understand wanting another monitor for this, but I just have my video playback in the DAW. The screen is so big there is plenty of room for it. In the above shots, the video plays back where the piano roll is (they are tabbed) so if I need to edit midi it switches over to the piano roll but then goes back to playing video.

Anyway it's just one path but for me it is SO MUCH better than having multiple screens for so many years, now I feel the need to spread the word like Jehovah's witnesses and Jesus!


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Ok wow, love your multiple desktop idea but could you have the same software opened on 3 desktops at all time (ex : main window in cubase, mix and kontakt) or you just ''recall'' these with a shortcut in the same desktop? Thank you!


----------



## chillbot (Apr 8, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Ok wow, love your multiple desktop idea but could you have the same software opened on 3 desktops at all time


You can, but it's dependent on your DAW, each operates differently in regards to floating windows, docking windows, multiple displays, etc. In Cakewalk yes I could throw the mixer onto another desktop (but I mix externally). Or yes I could use key commands to recall different window configurations.

Kind of missing the point though... the point is that one 55" has more screen space than two 30" such that you don't need to delegate things to different monitors.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Haha, gotcha chillbot, thank you for your kind reply!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 8, 2021)

a couple more thoughts if you like...

I am using a pair of 27" monitors because, well, because that was as good as it got when I last refreshed the studio. Since then I have used a variety of configurations in a variety of settings, and I've come up with the following thoughts...

One large screen is better than two smaller screens - provided the actual screen real estate is roughly the same - for two main reasons:
1) you are not always turning your head to look at one screen or the other (three screens solves this as well).
2) it is a little easier to create an acoustically pleasing environment with the single screen, although curved screens do pose a new set of problems.

Which is not to suggest that multiple screens, especially an odd number, have no advantages. For a while there I had one screen in portrait mode for reading scores (and email). And two others in landscape mode for everything else. One of the landscape monitors was front and center, so at least I wasn't ALWAYS craning my neck.

Chillbot makes some excellent arguments for one large screen, about my only nit is that I still prefer a second screen for the secondary computers. I suppose I really need to revisit that.

For a very brief time I tried a very large (55") screen mounted on the wall, but it was just a little too far away, I can probably re-arrange the studio to make that work, but it is a lot of rearranging and a lot of money for a concept that might not work. Still on the fence on that.

I also like the idea of smaller screens in spots where they can come in handy. I don't have multiple rooms right now, so that's moot, but I really like the idea.

Lastly I too am a big fan of multiple desktops, an idea that worked exceptionally well in Cakewalk (their relationship with MS paid off from time to time). It is also working pretty well in Studio One. I've been using multiple desktops forever it seems, at least since the days of X-Windows, so it might feel a bit more natural for me, but it is absolutely worth giving it a shot. MS recently (??) introduced a Power Toy that lets you create zones - helpful on smaller screens, indispensable on a larger screen I imagine.

As someone else pointed out, look at how others do things, but really nail down your workflow (at least your Q2-2021 workflow, nothing stays put anymore) first and let form follow function. Not easy, I know!


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Hey Bill, thank you! Found your Fancy zones toy, really interesting : https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones.

If I don't take the ''one big monitor'' route, I was thinking about having 3 screens side by side just like the one I have. I would have to lift my monitors just a little bit. I could also have 2 screens a little smaller, each side of my main display, like Pinar T., see image above.


----------



## chillbot (Apr 8, 2021)

This is very much similar to the old dilemma about where to put your piano/computer keyboards. Most people ultimately end up sacrificing one or the other and have to choose whether to prioritize your computer keyboard or your piano keyboard. Personally I prioritize the computer keyboard but I know others that prioritize the piano keyboard.

No offense to Pinar at all but it looks to me like she (and others that you posted) have prioritized the video monitors over the audio monitors. I get that the picture may be a bit askew and she is slouching a bit but with those screens the audio monitors look way too high and maybe even partially blocked. Silvestri's looks bad too. Not that there's anything wrong with this, especially assuming these setups are mostly for writing and not mixing. My personal experience was that I needed to prioritize the audio monitors and as it happened I'm super happy with how the video monitor turned out as a bonus. Just a choice you make I guess: which is more important the video or the audio. I know plenty of people that don't care because they do everything on fancy headphones.

IF I was going to go with a 3-monitor setup (I considered it) I would look into putting the two side screens almost flat on the desk, still angled at me but maybe at a 20-25 degree angle so you're almost looking down at them, then they are well out of the way of the audio monitors.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

*Ah yes, I noticed that some studios have their audio monitors a little high, thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Stringtree (Apr 8, 2021)

chillbot said:


> Would love to interject my own experience because I've recently had a major revelation about this.
> 
> About me: I want ALL THE SCREEN SPACE... I am addicted to screen space I want as much screens and as much resolution as possible, I wish I could wallpaper my walls with screens. And cost is not an issue for me, that is not to brag but to say, screens are that important to me... I would spend whatever it takes to do it right.
> 
> ...



I'm eyeing the big guy in the living room right now; seems like a just rationalization for the purchase of a new entertainment screen. 

But can you resize Kontakt?


----------



## easyrider (Apr 8, 2021)

Superwide plus one...


----------



## easyrider (Apr 8, 2021)

Stringtree said:


> I'm eyeing the big guy in the living room right now; seems like a just rationalization for the purchase of a new entertainment screen.
> 
> But can you resize Kontakt?


😂


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 8, 2021)

I've got three monitors for the main iMac rig: iMac (27", 5K) in the center, 27" 2k and 25.5" 2Ks in portrait orientation on one side. I'd love to be able to turn one of the portraits landscape but don't currently have the desk real estate to manage that. The secondary iMac rig (27", 5k) has a 24" 2K in portrait as a satellite. I also use this satellite to monitor the view of my DSLR. I can't produce a picture right now as the studio is currently dismantled for renovations.


----------



## Pablocrespo (Apr 8, 2021)

chillbot said:


> IF I was going to go with a 3-monitor setup (I considered it) I would look into putting the two side screens almost flat on the desk, still angled at me but maybe at a 20-25 degree angle so you're almost looking down at them, then they are well out of the way of the audio monitors.



Add capacitive touchscreen frames and it’s double the fun!!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 8, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Hey Bill, thank you! Found your Fancy zones toy, really interesting : https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/powertoys/fancyzones.
> 
> If I don't take the ''one big monitor'' route, I was thinking about having 3 screens side by side just like the one I have. I would have to lift my monitors just a little bit. I could also have 2 screens a little smaller, each side of my main display, like Pinar T., see image above.


One big monitor is good, three monitors are good, the thing I want to get away from is constantly having to look to one side or the other. I'm still not sure what I'll do. Right now I am re-arranging the studio (such as it is) and finally finishing the acoustical treatment. So many things that can keep one from actually using the tools!!!


----------



## Stringtree (Apr 8, 2021)

My issue is that I have bifocals. I have a 23" monitor close, so I have to tilt my head up to see it. Or push my glasses up into my tear ducts. 

A larger monitor at a couple-feet more distance would allow me to see without any tilt, through my far lenses. No cheap reading glasses work, because I have a stigmatism. Well, two of them.

I've thought about mounting a monitor as if it were on a lectern, so I could read it like a book. 

Worthy thread. Please, continue.


----------



## pmountford (Apr 8, 2021)

For once I don't necessarily agree with @chillbot or the others that have posted here. But that's not because they're wrong, its just that they're not the right setup I choose to use after experimenting for some time. And that's my point. I really don't think there's a one fit answer here, it's down to what you feel comfortable with and what works for you. And it's a compromise as there's only so.much space immediately around us so do you want to fill it with synths, pianos, touchscreen monitors, tactile DAW controllers and mixers, computer keyboard/mouse or plants? And then of course what do you want to.display on the screen? The maximum number of tracks possible simultaneously or do you go for maximum project width...? Not trying to play devil's advocate but pointing out no one solution will be perfect imho and in my case it just evolved into what I was comfortable with which is a couple of 40" 4k with a 24" touchscreen.

BTW I remote access the other PC's which means I don't need a monitor for each PC (or keyboard/mouse for that matter).


----------



## Trash Panda (Apr 8, 2021)

chillbot said:


> Would love to interject my own experience because I've recently had a major revelation about this.
> 
> About me: I want ALL THE SCREEN SPACE... I am addicted to screen space I want as much screens and as much resolution as possible, I wish I could wallpaper my walls with screens. And cost is not an issue for me, that is not to brag but to say, screens are that important to me... I would spend whatever it takes to do it right.
> 
> ...


I did not know about the ctrl + windows function! I’ve been debating adding more monitors to my 43” TV upstairs, but this may eliminate the need.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

I only use one computer and my speakers are on 2 wooden cubes, at the perfect height..hummm....


----------



## mscp (Apr 8, 2021)

wst3 said:


> One big monitor is good, three monitors are good, the thing I want to get away from is constantly having to look to one side or the other. I'm still not sure what I'll do. Right now I am re-arranging the studio (such as it is) and finally finishing the acoustical treatment. So many things that can keep one from actually using the tools!!!


I use one 32" monitor. I used to have more than one but it kind of itched me as well. 

What I do is.. use Windows Virtual Desktop. I have 3 virtual screens. DAW's main window sits on centre virtual desktop, mixer (right), other stuff (left). Whenever I want to access any of these screens, I just click the upper left/right kensington trackball buttons and voila.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 8, 2021)

Monitor setup is completely individualistic.

I wouldn't want @chillbot massive screen....To me it looks weird.

Refresh rate is key to me to and no one in this thread has mentioned it...

100hz 3440x1440p is the sweet spot for me...4K is just to small.....and 4K @ 60hz is horrible...I've tried it.

Multiple desktops is a faff... Ive had 4 monitors at one point and once I went superwide i never looked back. The addition of one more monintor works for me.

If 4k @ 60hz works for you...Then fine....

Sitting 2 feet away from a 55inch monitor is just daft IMO...but each to their own.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 8, 2021)

Regarding the speakers being slightly high, above the screens, I noticed that many composers do it, if anyone wants to share their thought about it : P. Toprak - Hans - Steve Jablonski - John Powell.


----------



## MartinH. (Apr 9, 2021)

easyrider said:


> and 4K @ 60hz is horrible...I've tried it.


What specifically didn't you like about it?

I'm asking because I'm super picky with screens, but I never thought about needing more than 60hz and haven't had a chance to try a faster screen since CRT days.


----------



## Marsen (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Regarding the speakers being slightly high, above the screens, I noticed that many composers do it, if anyone wants to share their thought about it : P. Toprak - Hans - Steve Jablonski - John Powell.


It´s no problem for them, as they all aren´t mixing their stuff themselves.

Serious mixing in these positions isn´t optimal, and the upper left corner is a joke, as it looks like, the screen is placed in front of a speaker (photo quality is bad, i might be wrong).

Formula is, the tweeters are on same height as your ears are.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> What specifically didn't you like about it?
> 
> I'm asking because I'm super picky with screens, but I never thought about needing more than 60hz and haven't had a chance to try a faster screen since CRT days.


60hz is a laggy mess regardless of resolution...100hz up is pure class...4K screens are low cost mass produced stuff ...the real deal is refresh rate....once you experience it you won’t tolerate anything else....


----------



## MartinH. (Apr 9, 2021)

easyrider said:


> 60hz is a laggy mess regardless of resolution...100hz up is pure class...4K screens are low cost mass produced stuff ...the real deal is refresh rate....once you experience it you won’t tolerate anything else....



The frame time difference between 60 jz and 100 hz is only 6.67 miliseconds, but many screens introduce between one and three frames input lag from internal processing. Is it possible you've compared a high input lag 60hz screen with a low input lag 100hz screen? Input lag can be absolutely jarring and especially TVs that don't have a "gamer mode" are prone to introduce such lag. With the shorter frame times on 100 hz display they should have a general advantage in input lag over 60 hz screens, but I'd still expect to see outliers where the 100 hz screens lag more than a good 60hz screen.


----------



## Leon Willett (Apr 9, 2021)

my 2 cents: 

The more colourful, big shiny things you have in front of you, the worse. Visual overload causes you to listen less deeply. 

I often put my (one and only) monitor in black and white while composing, and very often turn it off to listen. 

Try it! When you turn off the huge shiny object in front of you, you listen differently. 

So, my recommendation is for as few monitors as possible. Also, I like the monitor to be placed LOW (so you are kind of looking down into it). This way, you can look up and PAST the visual noise, at the important thing. Your speakers and how they wobble as your sound comes out. 

Knobs, faders, flashing VU meters, plugins... all very bad things to look at when you are making SOUND.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 9, 2021)

Hadn't thought of using those buttons - I think my workflow just improved! Thanks!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 9, 2021)

Leon Willett said:


> my 2 cents:
> 
> Knobs, faders, flashing VU meters, plugins... all very bad things to look at when you are making SOUND.


Probably worth more than 2 cents until that last line. Not so much for composing, but I still find it more natural to mix with lots of knobs, and faders, and meters...


----------



## Leon Willett (Apr 9, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Probably worth more than 2 cents until that last line. Not so much for composing, but I still find it more natural to mix with lots of knobs, and faders, and meters...


I meant knobs/faders/meters on a screen.


----------



## MartinH. (Apr 9, 2021)

Leon Willett said:


> Try it! When you turn off the huge shiny object in front of you, you listen differently.


I noticed that as well, but I just close my eyes.



3DC said:


> From ergonomics perspective many people usually don't know the relation between screen size and distance from eyes. Like studio monitors have to be in perfect triangle with your ears so should be the distance and the size of the display. Ideally 27" display should be 27" from your face. For 27" display the ideal resolution is 1920x1080 - no more and no less.


I never heard of such a rule and it makes little sense to me to generalize it like that. When I have a leaned back relaxed posture, I'm about 30" away from my 22" screen that has a 1920 x 1200 resolution. Going for 27 @ 27 with just 1080p would really bother me, but I can totally see how someone with poorer eyesight would benefit from it.

I think everyone needs to find their own sweetspots there, based on their unique personal needs. I tend to put screens at a distance, where they roughly occupy the same area of my field of vision. So that comes down to a similar formula as yours, but with a different ratio. And for the resolution you'd have to think of it as "pixels per degree of your field of view", which changes with the distance. I like my pixel density a little higher because I have good eyes and I don't like seeing the grid lines between the pixels. That's one reason why the big screens never appealed to me before they had the very high resolution panels. So all my screens are 22", with one 24" screen for watching netflix and gaming. But I want to buy a 4 k screen eventually.


@chillbot: If you think of your one big screen as 4 normal screens in a 2 x 2 setup, but without the annoying panel edges, sitting that close to it doesn't sound that crazy anymore. Maybe I should give a setup like this a try myself. I'd just need to figure out a good way to restrict games to a portion of the screen, because I wouldn't want to play fullscreen sitting that close.


----------



## macmac (Apr 9, 2021)

A couple thoughts... When I went from my 23" to a 30" around 2018, I had a bit of a time making the adjustment. I had to try several different chairs, and height, as the switch to a 30" required a different viewing position to alleviate some neck strain that I hadn't had with the 23".

The second thing is that with my 30" between my monitors (speakers), this puts me perfectly in the equilateral triangle for listening. It seems to me from any pics I've ever seen that any multiple / or larger screens would drastically change that triangle or block proper listening to the audio. If I put any larger viewing screen here, my speakers would have to be so far spread [to not be blocked by it] that I don't know how an accurate representation could happen unless I move my chair back by a few feet, in which case I'd then have to grow longer arms. I'd like to know how that is remedied, since to me, it is a major consideration for proper mixing. But it must be solvable since so many do it??


----------



## wst3 (Apr 9, 2021)

Leon Willett said:


> I meant knobs/faders/meters on a screen.


Well then... we are in complete agreement!


----------



## macmac (Apr 9, 2021)

Last year when I got my eyeglass prescription, I got a special pair of glasses just for computer viewing. I didn't know they existed but I will tell you they are great! The lenses spread the viewing angles in a different way than regular lenses (the middle section of the lens is vertically wider to match the distance of the screen and still have area for further and closer distance), plus they filter the eye-damaging light.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 9, 2021)

*Hey thank you all for chiming in! I'm intrigued with the 4k, refresh rate, etc (I'm really green about displays!), is 4k mandatory today?


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> *Hey thank you all for chiming in! I'm intrigued with the 4k, refresh rate, etc (I'm really green about displays!), is 4k mandatory today?


If you're not feeling a desire to add more resolution, then no it's not mandatory.
The funny thing with 4K monitors, is that unless you're using one that is 43" or bigger, you'll likely be using it at a lower resolution than 4K, or a scale of 125/150%, due to how small 4k makes everything.
As for refresh rates, I can only assume that 60Hz feels like rubbish to those that have become accustomed to higher refresh rates, but it's literally the most common refresh rate and probably what 95% of people use. I wouldn't think too much about it.
FWIW, I've been hooked on having a 43" 4K display front and center for the last 5 years or so, with a 27" QHD (or two) by the sides. Speakers poking over the tops of the side screens.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> The frame time difference between 60 jz and 100 hz is only 6.67 miliseconds, but many screens introduce between one and three frames input lag from internal processing. Is it possible you've compared a high input lag 60hz screen with a low input lag 100hz screen? Input lag can be absolutely jarring and especially TVs that don't have a "gamer mode" are prone to introduce such lag. With the shorter frame times on 100 hz display they should have a general advantage in input lag over 60 hz screens, but I'd still expect to see outliers where the 100 hz screens lag more than a good 60hz screen.


100hz IPS screen no contest

Using a TV as a monitor is silly they are not designed to be sat in front of on a desk.

Hence why superwide IPS monitors with high refresh rates are far more expensive than 4K 60 hz tat


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

Jdiggity1 said:


> As for refresh rates, I can only assume that 60Hz feels like rubbish to those that have become accustomed to higher refresh rates, but it's literally the most common refresh rate and probably what 95% of people use. I wouldn't think too much about it.


Just because others settle for mediocrity doesn’t mean it’s the right path.

TN panels are rubbish...IPS is far superior. IPS at 2k super wide with 100hz + is a different league.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> *Hey thank you all for chiming in! I'm intrigued with the 4k, refresh rate, etc (I'm really green about displays!), is 4k mandatory today?


I actively dont have a 4K monitor. Not out of cost or anything else.

The sweet spot for me is 3440x 1440P

I could not go back to 16.9 ratio for my main monitor again.


----------



## MartinH. (Apr 9, 2021)

easyrider said:


> 100hz IPS screen no contest
> 
> Using a TV as a monitor is silly they are not designed to be sat in front of on a desk.
> 
> Hence why superwide IPS monitors with high refresh rates are far more expensive than 4K 60 hz tat


What's the technical difference between a huge ultrawide PC monitor with IPS panel and a huge TV with IPS panel? 




easyrider said:


> TN panels are rubbish...IPS is far superior. IPS at 2k super wide with 100hz + is a different league.


TN Panels always were shockingly bad. Do they _still _use those? :(


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

3DC said:


> A nice affordable alternative for wide screen would be two HD 1920X1080 IPS displays with thin bezel (frame). Its got 40% more screen space but with division in the middle.
> 
> This is probably my next setup. Not sure yet.


No mention of screen size?

1080p at 27” above is horrible....24” 1080p even grinds my gears....


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

MartinH. said:


> What's the technical difference between a huge ultrawide PC monitor with IPS panel and a huge TV with IPS panel?
> 
> 
> 
> TN Panels always were shockingly bad. Do they _still _use those? :(


Most TV do not use IPS panels..

and Then you have the ratio...


----------



## Marsen (Apr 9, 2021)

easyrider said:


> 1080p at 27” above is horrible....24” 1080p even grinds my gears....


...so I am in a horrible working situation with exact this, 2x 27" 1080 P and a 40" TV.
Maybe it´s also personal eyesight.


----------



## GNP (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Regarding the speakers being slightly high, above the screens, I noticed that many composers do it, if anyone wants to share their thought about it : P. Toprak - Hans - Steve Jablonski - John Powell.


The monitors are above the screens, so that it doesn't affect the way you mix your music. Screens can block the wave forms coming from your monitors.

Either way, all the best Valerie!


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 9, 2021)

Hey Thank you, I meant the general rule that the tweeters must be at the height of your ears, so even if the speakers are not blocked, they're a little highs. 

Thank you and all the best to you too!

Val


----------



## JohnG (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Regarding the speakers being slightly high, above the screens, I noticed that many composers do it, if anyone wants to share their thought about it : P. Toprak - Hans - Steve Jablonski - John Powell.



well, obviously, those people don't know what they are doing.

I think this addresses both speaker placement and an understated look:


----------



## JohnG (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Hey Thank you, I meant the general rule that the tweeters must be at the height of your ears, so even if the speakers are not blocked, they're a little highs.


But seriously, I keep the speakers to the right and left of monitors so as not to block them. You can block low frequencies, I guess, but I want unobstructed speakers-to-ears.

Good topic Valérie. The photo below shows actual setup. To the viewer's right is the Pro Tools mixing computer / screen. Two smaller screens in front of keyboard for DAW and notation, movie / game screen in centre, in between is a separate screen (that you wouldn't need) for satellite PCs which use an old KVM switch. That's not how you'd set it up if you were starting from scratch, but like a lot of composers it's a mix of legacy and new.


----------



## Valérie_D (Apr 9, 2021)

Thanks John 
The ''high speakers'' issue is probably overlooked when the final mix does not occur in the studio, like Marsen pointed out.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 9, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Thanks John
> The ''high speakers'' issue is probably overlooked when the final mix does not occur in the studio, like Marsen pointed out.


Maybe Marsen's right -- for people like John Powell. 

Nevertheless, lesser mortals occasionally end up short of time and / or just doing favours for someone, so mixes go straight to broadcast / dub stage from our studios. 

Besides, our home stereo mix is crucial while working because it's used for approvals. I think most people mix all the rough cues for a director which, arguably, is quite important since that's the do/die stage.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

Marsen said:


> ...so I am in a horrible working situation with exact this, 2x 27" 1080 P and a 40" TV.
> Maybe it´s also personal eyesight.


Shudder....sounds grim.....


----------



## Marsen (Apr 9, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Shudder....sounds grim.....


Nah...just teasing


----------



## easyrider (Apr 9, 2021)

Marsen said:


> Nah...just teasing


Thanks for the relief 🤓


----------



## macmac (Apr 13, 2021)

Stringtree said:


> My issue is that I have bifocals. I have a 23" monitor close, so I have to tilt my head up to see it. Or push my glasses up into my tear ducts.
> 
> A larger monitor at a couple-feet more distance would allow me to see without any tilt, through my far lenses. No cheap reading glasses work, because I have a stigmatism. Well, two of them.
> 
> ...


What solved this issue for me is getting a pair of glasses that is specifically made for viewing a computer screen. These are different than regular lenses (I have both kinds). The computer one is not only filtered to compensate for the damaging light but the way the bifocals are spread across the lens is custom made for screen viewing. You don't have to tilt, raise, move your head all over plus you don't have any neck strain. It's made perfectly so that the screen bifocal section is right where you'd want it and is taller than in the other glasses. Then when you need to see your keyboard, that is spot-on also, and finally if you need to look outside of your room at a distance, that is at the very top of the lens in a narrow band.

I had never known these existed until over a year ago when I went to get new glasses, and they told me about the computer ones. I ended up getting one of those pairs and one of the regular pairs. They are just great and are more healthy for your eyes when you do a lot of computer work which is what I'm in front of all the time.

One note though: I wear these so much that sometimes I leave the room and forget these are the ones I've got on. When I run out of the house, I can drive in them so I've even gotten as far as going into a store. Then I realized I had them on because the products on the shelves are hard to see. That has happened to me a couple times, so I now keep an old spare pair in my car just in case.


----------

