Do you use a 4K monitor?

[cryophonik]

My main music computer is a 27-inch iMac (5K) paired with a Thunderbolt Display, so technically I’m not on 4K, but it’s a glorious thing to behold IMO.

[BONES]

I'd be interested to know how many of those using 4k monitors run them at native resolution (100% scaling)? I see no point in scaling my display, you are just using up energy for no reason.

I think the resolution of a monitor should be tied to its size. I can't see any point in running more than full HD on any laptop sized screen. In fact, I think HD is fine up to about 23". Between 23" and 32", I'd say 2.5k (2560 x whatever) is probably ideal. I wouldn't go to 4k at less than 32" screen size.

Both the screens on my 14" laptop are 1920 wide, one is 1080 high, the other 515, which gives me tonnes of space when I am working in Studio One and everything displays at a usable size.

At work, we trialled using one 32" 4k monitor and two 27" 2.5k monitors and the whole dept agreed that two lower res monitors were way more useful and looked every bit as good. So all the office workers have a single 32" display for their spreadsheets and we have dual 27's.

[N__K]

At this time, I'm using two 24" (52 x 29cm viewable area) 3840x2160 monitors, at 150% scaling, at a distance of about 24" (60cm) from the eyes.

I like very much the Hi-DPI (what Apple calls "Retina") property of it: that is, when pixel density is between 150-300 PPI, and appropriate scaling setting is used, sharpness approaches a high-quality print. Increased readability of small font sizes is a plus as well.

For example, on 24" 1920x1080 I can see clearly the pixelation and "screendoor effect" at desktop viewing distances, but on 24" 3840x2160 display the image looks more like a print or photograph.


***

Old plugin GUI sizes can be an issue, but aside from legacy projects, nowadays most of plugins I use are scalable.
For a developer, I think that providing scaling choices from 100% to 300% are a must nowadays. Better yet, all the way to 600%, to future-proof it for the eventuality that 8K and 16K become a norm for sub-30" displays someday.

Synth1 is an interesting example - even the old 32-bit versions from early 2000s have 200% scaling option, so its UI still remains usable on Hi-DPI displays. The oldest version I have is 1.05a from 2002, which makes it nearly 20 years old.

[BONES]

For example, on 24" 1920x1080 I can see clearly the pixelation and "screendoor effect" at desktop viewing distances, but on 24" 3840x2160 display the image looks more like a print or photograph.

That's absolute bullshit. Nobody ever complained about that until Steve Jobs told them that's what they were seeing. You have to remember that before flat-panel displays, CRTs were infinitely variable. I could run an 8" screen at 4000x3000 pixels if I wanted to so there is no way anyone would have put up with flat-panel screens if they could see any pixellation. It just wouldn't have happened. You're being conned (from the grave).

I've used Retina and non-Retina Apple displays and the image quality difference wasn't worth worrying about. It just wasn't. In fact, it n my last job, where nobody had assigned workspaces, it was the old non-Retina Cinema Displays that were most popular with everyone. People would get in early to secure one for their shift.

[N__K]

I have my two 24" 3840x2160 setup as vertical (one above the other), with two 24" 1920x1080s on the sides.
I prefer the image on Hi-DPI 4K ones by far, and can tell them apart easily. Readability of small fonts is the clearest giveaway, but the general sharpness is obvious (to me) as well.

As for CRTs, I have experience of using them all the way back to era of 320x240 resolutions, and during those decades I was never happy with the pixel density nor sharpness. My last CRT was a 19" Samsung 959NF and I used it at 1600x1200, beyond which the distinction between sharp lines deteriorated.

CRTs have an effective DPI limit as well, due to shadow mask or aperture grille (the latter was used on Trinitrons and its derivatives). It used to be marked as dot pitch in the specifications. I tried maxing out the resolution of every CRT I ever used, and I much prefer the Hi-DPI displays of today.

[Scotty]

I have two 28 ' 4k monitors and one 1080p monitor. The dual 4k monitors are identical. I keep one at 2560 X 1440 placed on my left . This is the monitor I put my arranger on. At 4k the text isn't comfortable for me. The second 4k monitor on my right, I keep at 4k and this is where I place my mixer (s) ... I can view a lot of mixer strips at that resolution and it is perfectly workable for me. The 1080p monitor sits above the dual monitors on an arm. I use it to view plugins that are too small to be comfortable on the other monitors ( mostly Universal Audio plugins) but there are others. I'll often keep a browser open on that monitor. The setup is perfectly functional for me. I tried going to a single large 44 inch 4k monitor but I didn't like as much as what I have now. YMMV.

[kritikon]

No. TBH I wouldn't see much point without getting a big one, and I did try making music briefly on a projector ages ago. TBH it was not good. A huge wall-sized screen is actually pretty difficult to concentrate on and do stuff IMO. I would get a 4k for general telly duties in the house, but no point as our internet is nowhere near good enough to get 4k streaming. Still only have VDSL - no fibre available yet.

Quite happy with a 32" 1080 one, and could live with a smaller one happily. A slightly better screen is useful for when the music inspiration gets stuck and one watches...ahem...other stuff to pass the time.

[chk071]

FWIW, VDSL can easily do 4K. The data size is not that big.

If you need that is a different thing. Full HD looks great on 4K screens, because they don't have to interpolate for that resolution.

[foosnark]

My eyes probably couldn't notice a difference. I'm running a 29" ultrawide at 2560x1080, and if I were to upgrade, I'd only go up to a curved 34" ultrawide at 3440x1440.

The LG DualUp monitor is interesting, 16:18 ratio, like two 21.5" monitors stacked vertically. But I'd prefer it in a bigger size.

[kritikon]

FWIW, VDSL can easily do 4K. The data size is not that big.

If you need that is a different thing. Full HD looks great on 4K screens, because they don't have to interpolate for that resolution.

Dunno about that. VDSL is fine for local TV and for Netflix etc, though it does occasionally hang. But whenever I do anything via VPN it often struggles. I'm no expert in these things, but I assume VPN needs more juice, or is it the nature of VPN that it hangs?

Don't forget I'm in NZ, and rural NZ at that. We're not noted for being wizzbang at any infrastructure stuff excepting maybe Auckland. You can't even rely on electricity supply here. I have no town water or sewage despite this being quite a posh coastal address. Fast internet is something other people have.

But I wasn't aware ordinary HD looked better in 4k screens though, thanks for that. Might actually consider one.

[antic604]

I'd be interested to know how many of those using 4k monitors run them at native resolution (100% scaling)? I see no point in scaling my display, you are just using up energy for no reason.

I think the resolution of a monitor should be tied to its size. I can't see any point in running more than full HD on any laptop sized screen...

Yes, there is a tangible difference in clarity and detail between 4K 200% and 1080p 100% in DAWs that support high-DPI screens properly, like Bitwig, Live, Studio One and now even Reason 12.

You literally get 4 pixels of information where previously you just had 1 pixel, which translates into better icons, fonts, grid lines, automation curves & "handles", waveforms, rounder knobs, mouse cursor, etc. and so on. I believe it also works better for the eyes, because - with sharper image - they tire less. If the image is pixelated, then the eyes try to find the missing infinite sharpness found in nature by changing focus all the time.

In the past it was a gamble because DAWs and plugins would struggle to leverage that, but nowadays it's rare - out of the big DAWs only Cubase lags here and for plugins it's also the "old" guard: Waves, NI, SoundToys, etc.

[BONES]

Yes, there is a tangible difference in clarity and detail between 4K 200% and 1080p 100% in DAWs that support high-DPI screens properly, like Bitwig, Live, Studio One and now even Reason 12.

I bet it's not because of the resolution so much as because it's overall a better panel.

You literally get 4 pixels of information where previously you just had 1 pixel, which translates into better icons, fonts, grid lines, automation curves & "handles", waveforms, rounder knobs, mouse cursor, etc. and so on.

Not necessarily and if you can't see the pixels anyway, or the bitmaps that define those things aren't optimised for it, you won't see any difference. But even if you can, so f**king what? Doe sit make your music sound any better or allow you to get it finished any faster? No, it doesn't and that's my biggest problem with it - every developer has to stop working on making their product better and instead re-build all their GUI graphics to support a monitor res that creates more problems than it solves, whilst sucking up GPU resources that might otherwise improve the UX of your DAW in a more substantial way.

I believe it also works better for the eyes, because - with sharper image - they tire less.

Evidence? I don't even understand what "tired eyes" means. I get tired but my eyes don't. I can sit in front of a screen for 16-18 hours and my vision doesn't change at all. If you're having problems with your eyes, it's more likely the environment in which you are working than anything else. Try turning the light off or pulling the curtain. A darker work environment is much better.

If the image is pixelated, then the eyes try to find the missing infinite sharpness found in nature by changing focus all the time.

Except the image isn't visibly pixelated at HD res. It just isn't and until Steve Jobs told you that you needed a Retina screen, absolutely nobody had ever complained that it was. Literally nobody.

[jamcat]

My monitors go up to 20k

[Photo_G]

I have a 49" at 3840x1080, which is essentially two 27" 1080p monitors merged. For my (older) eyes, it's just right.

[AdvancedFollower]

1080p here. Everything is the right size in the DAW, and I don't need a $2,000 video card to play games.