# 4k vs 2k for Logic Pro.



## mralmostpopular (Nov 16, 2019)

I’m working on redoing my set-up and would love some opinions on dual monitors for Logic. I’m thinking about 27in monitors. I’ve seen a few threads on other forums from a few years back of people suggesting that 4k at that size made text difficult to read, and that Logic is better at 2k if you’re going for anything less than 32in. Does anyone have a picture of Logic running on a monitor this size?

Thanks.


----------



## tav.one (Nov 17, 2019)

I have a 27 inch 4K monitor, running at 2.5K (1440p). Logic looks perfect.
I would use a 32 inch 4K monitor at 3K and 43 inch monitor at 4K native.

If you’re someone who uses the monitor very close to their face then you can manage 4K resolution on 27 inch, otherwise it will be too small.


----------



## Pier (Nov 17, 2019)

If you are using 4K at 1:1 pixels then yeah it will be hard to read... but who does that? The point of a 4K monitor is using it with 2x scaling. The UI will be as big as a 1080p but with sharper everything like in retina displays.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 17, 2019)

mralmostpopular said:


> I’m working on redoing my set-up and would love some opinions on dual monitors for Logic. I’m thinking about 27in monitors. I’ve seen a few threads on other forums from a few years back of people suggesting that 4k at that size made text difficult to read, and that Logic is better at 2k if you’re going for anything less than 32in. Does anyone have a picture of Logic running on a monitor this size?
> 
> Thanks.



4k at 27" will be way too hard to read. My 32" 4k is too hard to read at native. However you can run them in HiDPI mode, at a lower resolution each..and they would look fantastic. 2560x1440. The resolution you want should result in about 110ppi, give or take, to use at a typical 2-3 foot viewing distance. That is generally considered about the right font size to read everything. And that is what 2560x1440 will look like on a 27". You can use this calculator to figure that out:



DPI Calculator / PPI Calculator



2560x1440 on a 4k in HiDPI mode looks really really nice. I like it better then native actually. It smooths out corners a bit. True retina on that display would be 1920x1080 in HiDPI, and that obviously looks the best, but I think you will find that 2560x1440 also looks spectacular and brings you the golden ppi of around 108ppi, which will feel just about the right size. 

Lastly, if you're buying new stuff, you might want to consider an ultra wide. there is another forum thread recently about the LG Ultrawide 49".. But two 27's side by side would end up more total pixels, which you means you need more powerful video card by the way, make sure you have one that can support 2 4k monitors at full resolution. Another advantage of ultra-wide is that you can put your email page or word document or whatever you are working on...in the middle, when you use two monitors side by side you're always looking to one side or the other. I personally find that a little annoying, I don't like it. I have two monitors right now, one is centered in front of me and the other is way over to the side, and I really don't use it that often, only when I really need it. I love my 32" 4k, but my next monitor is going to be ultra-wide for sure.


----------



## ptram (Nov 17, 2019)

This is what I wrote in another thread:

SwitchResX allowed me to discover a resolution that seems perfect for a 27” display [seen at about 1m distance]: 2304x1296. It's 10% smaller than QHD [2560x1440], and lets the user interface elements have the same size they had on my old 24”, without stealing too much real-estate.

Paolo


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 17, 2019)

SwitchResX also helps a lot to setup HiDPI modes. And in your case ptram, make sure to try 2304x1296 HiDPI


----------



## charlieclouser (Nov 17, 2019)

Yes, with 4k at 27" then the text in Logic will be a little too small unless your face is ten less than two feet from the screen.

A 4k at 32" is okay if you're sitting at normal distance, say arm's length - up to about 3-4 feet - but some folks think even that's too small. I use a 4k at 32" and it's perfect, but I don't have any mixers, big control surfaces, or other stuff in between me and the display that would push it further away.

If you have the display above a large control surface or something, then you might want to look at 43" displays. These are not very expensive but are physically quite large and bulky, and they kind of need to be a little further away so you're not wagging your head side to side all the time as you work.

I will say that for me it IS absolutely necessary to use a 4k display, and not in some "reduced pixels" mode with Logic. If I'm in a mode like 2560x1600 then I can't see enough tracks at once.

I use a 32" 4k in the center, with a 32" 2560x1440 on either side. The left one is for ProTools on another computer, and the right one is the second display on my Logic machine. Things appear larger on that display because of the larger dot pitch, and that's my solution for plugins that are too tiny and can't be rescaled. This lets me have "tiny vision" mode on the main Logic screen and drag plugins like Kontakt to the right-hand display for "chunky vision" mode.


----------



## hdsmile (Nov 17, 2019)

I have Dell p4317Q and I wonder what is the best resolution setup for this monitor?, it connected via USB-C (th3) to DP in Monitor with highest 4k resolution 3840x2160 it seems everything looks great, but maybe I missed something...


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 17, 2019)

whatever looks great to you, you should use!

I personally cannot use 3840x2160 on a 32" monitor, its way too small fonts for me. Now, some apps that tend to use larger fonts, etc..might work great like that, but over all, I need around 105-110ppi. Sometimes I will go to native resolution while tracking or something where I don't need to read a lot of fonts.


----------



## David Kudell (Nov 17, 2019)

the iMac retina is perfect for me...it’s a 5K screen that looks like a 2560x1440 display as far as icon sizes go. I tried to buy an lg widscreen 34” 5K to go with it but the Icons were too big when in retina mode and too small in native res. And in between modes looked blurry and also seemed to slow my Mac down.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 18, 2019)

In my opinion the wide screen displays need to be 6k or higher in order to use any hidpi modes. They are Called 5k because of the pixel count but they are bigger then say an Apple 27 inch 5k (or the lg equivalent). So they simply cannot handle hidpi modes without being ridiculous low resolution and huge fonts. 

if you use the web calculator I mentioned earlier you can enter in any screen size and resolution and it will calculate a few things including PPI. Ideally you want to end up between 100-110 ppi to produce what seems like about normal sized fonts. You can always accept smaller fonts with a larger ppi if your eyes can handle it hurray for you, but that is the Goldilocks zone


----------



## mralmostpopular (Nov 18, 2019)

So, it sounds like 2560x1440 is the way to go for a good balance between legibility and screen real estate.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 18, 2019)

on a 27" monitor that will be in the goldilocks zone of font size from a typical viewing distance. Some people claim to enjoy smaller fonts then that, I dunno. Some people might need larger. And it depends on your distance from the display too. Also if you are using a program like LogicPro or something and hardly ever reading fonts but mostly looking at bars and lines and lanes and curves...then its a bit of a moot point about font reading and perhaps you could use a bit higher resolution and get away with it...perhaps even native. Me personally I can't use my 32" at native without having to lean my face to a foot from the monitor when trying to read fonts. I can't even imagine trying to do that with a 27".

If price is no object, the LG 5k 27" display would be pretty cool in a dual monitor setup, you could run them both at 2560x1440, full Retina HiDPI, and that would be about the same number of pixels on the screen as that 49" ultra wide screen, except in Retina mode rather then native, which would look spectacular. 

In addition to that, you can always bump it up a little bit if you are doing work that doesn't need font readability. It takes about 3 seconds to change the resolution if you use SwitchResX. That tool also helps you setup different HiDPI resolutions. So for example, with a 4k monitor you could not only do 1920x1080 (full retina), but also 2560x1440 that is not quite as good as full retina, but still better then non-hidpi version. I run my 32" 4k most of the time at 3008x1692 hidpi, which is even less good than 2560x1440. But still good enough, and better then the non-hiDPI scaled version. I even go to 3200x1600 sometimes if I am not reading fonts and in a pinch I go full native...but not often because I truly can't read the fonts without strain at that resolution.

The infamous 30" Cinema Display from Apple was one of the most perfect monitors ever made in terms of being just the right resolution for a typical viewing distance, 2-3 feet. It worked out to around 110ppi as I recall. I have read in various places that 110ppi is kind like the gold standard for what a normal monitor at a normal working distance ought to be, and while opinions will always vary, my experience has been that this is true. Right around there is where it just seems to be not too big and not too small but just about right. Goldilocks. On a 27" monitor that is 2560x1440. and if the monitor is 4k, then you an run it at 2460x1440 hidpi and it will look very good. If the monitor is 5k then you can run it at 2560x1440 hidpi and it will be even better, as true retina quality. And if you want to you can always run them at 3008x1692 or even full native if you're not needing to read fonts for a bit.


----------



## ptram (Nov 18, 2019)

Dewdman42 said:


> SwitchResX also helps a lot to setup HiDPI modes. And in your case ptram, make sure to try 2304x1296 HiDPI


I think it's what I’m using. The monitor says that I’m receiving at its full resolution, but at the same time SwitchResX is sending a lower resolution frame to the display.

Paolo


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 18, 2019)

No if it’s hidpi switchresx will have a little hidpi icon next to that resolution on the menu. 






You have to go out of your way to set it up, OS X doesn’t make it easy unless you’re using an Apple brand monitor.

So normally without hidpi, OS X renders the graphics on a software canvas at whatever resolution you chose and sends that to your video card. Your video card then upscales that to your display’s native resolution. But it doesn’t usually do any interpolation or anything smart like that, you typically end up with jaggies because it’s just putting a lower resolution into more pixels with jaggy edges still there.

Alternatively, when hidpi is being used, then behind the scenes OS X renders all graphics on a giant canvas that is 4x the size of the resolution you see. It doesn’t just scale it down. It renders it at higher res internally and then the video card scales it back down. This downscaling instead of upscaling results in smoother lines and corners, especially if your monitor’s native resolution is exactly double the resolution you choose to actually view. The interpolation happens in OS X software.

if your display resolution is set to something bigger then exactly 1/2 the native, then the interpolation will be a little less then perfect but still better then none at all. I find it to be superior in every way to non-hidpi, and quite usable up to about 75% of the native resolution and after that the interpolation errors start to be too blurry for me, though still better then non hidpi at the same resolution.

so with a 4k monitor. The perfect interpolation will happen with display at 1920x1080. It will look so gorgeous it will freak you out! Like an Apple retina. I find 2560x1440hidpi to be quite awesome also, slightly degraded from the true retina but still way way way nicer then non hidpi. For me personally I like that even more then native because the interpolation fills in all the jaggies. I think 2560x1440 is about 2/3 the resolution of full native if I recall correctly. But usually work at 3008x1692 hidpi because even though 2560 looks slightly sharper, the fonts are all about the right size on a 32 in monitor at 3008x1692. And hidpi definitely looks better then non hidpi.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 18, 2019)

So Ptram what you need to do in SwitchResX is setup a "custom resolution" of 4608x2592. I can't remember now if there are other steps to enable HiDPI generally in OSX, but try that first and see if 2304x1296hiDPI shows up on the SwitchResX menu. If it doesn't show up then I will try to recall if there are other steps to switch on HiDPI in OSX generally. Generally I think SwitchResX can do that for you, but I vaguely recall you have to tell it to do that somehow.

Once HiDPi is on, then all of your actual video resolutions that your video card knows about will appear, but then also a 1/2-resolution-HiDPI one will appear that matches up with each of the real ones... Then you're in business. If you look at my menu above, see how I have some super huge resolutions over 6k on there. Those are custom resolutions I created in SwitchResX...I never use them directly, but their existence makes the 3008x1692hiDPI resolution show up, for example.


----------



## Dewdman42 (Nov 18, 2019)

Yea so I guess you also need to do this to enable HiDPI modes:


```
sudo defaults write /Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist DisplayResolutionEnabled -bool true
```

Even then, my understanding is that it also still depends on the video card you have which may or may not support it (mine is RX580). it also seems to work on my 2010 MBP.

For information here: https://www.techjunkie.com/hidpi-mode-os-x/


----------



## ptram (Nov 19, 2019)

Thank you for the explanation, @Dewdman42! There is a little low-level system modification to do, to try the custom resolution, but I'l l try it!

Paolo


----------

