Dear members,
Hope here is the right place to ask as I am going to replace my 4 years old 2k 27" AOC monitor with a new one 32" non-curve. Apart from using Bitwig, Live and Cubase for making music, I also use Vegas and ACDSEE to do video/photo editing. What is the benefit of using 4K in a 32" monitor ? I only know it will help my video editing if I film 4k footage (sooner or later). But for music production, any reason to buy 4K ?
My sitting distance is less than 3 feet away from the monitor, fyi.
Cowby
To 4K or stay with 2K Monitor ?
-
- KVRAF
- 35424 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
More picture sharpness at the cost of having everything smaller on the screen, so you need to scale.cowby wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 9:09 am Dear members,
Hope here is the right place to ask as I am going to replace my 4 years old 2k 27" AOC monitor with a new one 32" non-curve. Apart from using Bitwig, Live and Cubase for making music, I also use Vegas and ACDSEE to do video/photo editing. What is the benefit of using 4K in a 32" monitor ?
IMO, not worth it with a 32" monitor. But, I'm sure others will disagree.
I'm in the process myself ATM to buy a new monitor. Think I'll go for a 27" 1080p one. Also better for the performance, because games with 4k will be way more heavy on the CPU/GPU than with 1080p.
-
- KVRAF
- 4590 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw
You can use 4k monitor as a 2560 x 1440 monitor with 150% pixel density. Certainly extra screen area is useful in any creative activity. Extra sharpness of 4K over 2560 x 1440 is a bonus.
Blog ------------- YouTube channel
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
-
- Banned
- 11467 posts since 4 Jan, 2017 from Warsaw, Poland
You will probably want to use Windows scaling, so whereas Bitwig and Live handle that great, Cubase and especially 3rd party plugins are a very mixed bag. But it's already much better than it was 2-3 years ago, so if you need/want such a screen for your video work, DAWs + VSTs will catch up sooner or later.
-
- KVRist
- 157 posts since 24 Oct, 2006
The difference in text clarity is significant. I consider 4K mandatory, for myself.
At a company I used to work for, IT replaced all our 4K screens with 2K screens. They did this, because the 2K screens had USB-C cables and they thought we would all appreciate having a single cable connection to our laptops. What actually happened was they received a flood of complaints that the new screens were broken or there was something not set up correctly. There was nothing wrong with the screens, but people were so used to 4K that they thought the new monitors were set up incorrectly. Most people requested the old 4K monitors back.
At a company I used to work for, IT replaced all our 4K screens with 2K screens. They did this, because the 2K screens had USB-C cables and they thought we would all appreciate having a single cable connection to our laptops. What actually happened was they received a flood of complaints that the new screens were broken or there was something not set up correctly. There was nothing wrong with the screens, but people were so used to 4K that they thought the new monitors were set up incorrectly. Most people requested the old 4K monitors back.
-
- KVRAF
- 2542 posts since 20 Apr, 2005
For me 32" without a curve can get a bit annoying if needing to regularly look to things in the corners. 27" is on the cusp of this for me.
I personally think 2 x 27" screens at 2560 x 1440 is the best value for a super workable configuration. You can slightly angle screens towards each other and you get two really usable areas of screen real estate. For me works really well for music production and I think it's the best cost/usablity at the moment.
I personally think 2 x 27" screens at 2560 x 1440 is the best value for a super workable configuration. You can slightly angle screens towards each other and you get two really usable areas of screen real estate. For me works really well for music production and I think it's the best cost/usablity at the moment.
-
- Banned
- 11467 posts since 4 Jan, 2017 from Warsaw, Poland
That depends on the definition of "big". For me, when using non-100% scaling it's a difference between it being useless (blurry, fuzzy and generaly tiring on the eyes) and great
-
- KVRist
- 413 posts since 29 Apr, 2019
I use a 32' 1440p curved panel. Honestly I find 4k to be just buzzwords. I have a 50" 4k Samsung tv and to actually see the details I have to sit super close to where it was not realistic in use.
-
- KVRAF
- 35424 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
I can't tell the difference between 4k and full HD on my TV... the pixel ratio of both resolutions is so that the TV doesn't have to interpolate with full HD, so, it looks almost the same. Of course, it looks worse when the TV actually HAS to interpolate, with other resolutions, but, the TV's/monitors do that pretty well these days as well.
-
- KVRian
- 1474 posts since 7 Jan, 2004
It all depends if you feel confined with the screen estate at a single 2k monitor.
Personaly I'd love to have 4k for the sheer amount of space it offers. It needs a 32" monitor or larger though. Any smaller and it will be strenuous to use. Of course it depends on the distance between your eyes and the monitor wether 32" is large enough. At a viewing distance of around 3 feet or slightly less, a 43" 4k screen is great but also a little expensive (don't use a TV because it has a very reflective screen!).
You might also consider a widescreen @ 3440x1440 which gives you a screen estate between 2k and 4k.
Adding another 2k screen to the one you already have may be the cheapest expansion, if only you can get used to the besels right in the middle.
The benefits of extre screen estate? More overview, less scrolling within and switching between windows.
Personaly I'd love to have 4k for the sheer amount of space it offers. It needs a 32" monitor or larger though. Any smaller and it will be strenuous to use. Of course it depends on the distance between your eyes and the monitor wether 32" is large enough. At a viewing distance of around 3 feet or slightly less, a 43" 4k screen is great but also a little expensive (don't use a TV because it has a very reflective screen!).
You might also consider a widescreen @ 3440x1440 which gives you a screen estate between 2k and 4k.
Adding another 2k screen to the one you already have may be the cheapest expansion, if only you can get used to the besels right in the middle.
The benefits of extre screen estate? More overview, less scrolling within and switching between windows.
Last edited by Timfonie on Fri May 14, 2021 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The more I hang around at KVR the less music I make.
-
- KVRAF
- 35424 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
I just ordered a new 24.5" 1080p IPS display. Perfect size/resolution for me, and, the major advantage was to get a IPS panel, so I have some nicer colours and better viewing angle (144 Hz is rather a bonus on top of it for me, as I was OK with 60 Hz).
TBH, from 27" upwards, I'd probably rather get a 1440p display, and, for anything over 32", 4k might be better.
TBH, from 27" upwards, I'd probably rather get a 1440p display, and, for anything over 32", 4k might be better.
-
- KVRian
- 1021 posts since 3 Oct, 2011 from Christchurch, New Zealand
we’ve been buying the new 38” 3840x1600 monitors - basically gives the horizontal width of a 43” 4K but without the neck-strain inducing height of the 43”
We tried the 43”s when they came out - if you’re close enough the top edge is too high, if you’re back far enough to not have that issue you have to crank the scaling so high it’s like a fullHD in terms of screen realestate
We’ve also got a couple of the 49” curved ( 5120x1440 ) for people who previously had dual 27” qhd setups (same pixel and physical specs.- just no gap)
