Coming from the dude who just replied to my "Neither way of working is objectively better than the other of course."* with "I disagree"crimsonwarlock wrote: Tue Dec 10, 2024 10:56 amGaslighting much? It's rather impressive how people like you think they can demand how other people should perceive their realityjens wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2024 11:13 pmYes, of course you would say that as first of all you spent good money on your redundant additonal screens - plus, of course, they physically clutter up your workspaceI disagree. With my current setup, I couldn't go back to a single screen workflow.![]()
Yeah, the joke was obviously lost on you, old man....son?
Come on - in all honesty it was obviously actually who wanted that - you just apparently didn't think this through, or otherwise you'd have put your oilskin on. And now that you ended up soaking wet you play the sulking game.Who's condescending here? I'm definitely not your son, and I'll bet I'm quite a bit older than you
But as you clearly want to turn this into some pissing contest, I'm sorry, but I won't play. Have a nice day.
*And frankly: it was just me being polite. Your setup is completely absurd. What's the actual distance between the mixer- and and rack-screen and by how many degrees do you have to rotate your body and/or head left/right and up/down between these?
How many degrees up/down between the arragement and the mixer? And why is the arrangement screen that much smaller? How long are your songs typically? 16bars?
Plus, of course, the distance between where you're sitting and both these screens is about the same, which doesn't make sense. The smaller screen is a bit too far away and the mixer-screen is far too close for its size (and the rack-screen is of course much too far away) - meaning you have to turn you head a lot between its left and right edge, which is as unhealthy as it is inefficient and uncomfortable.
You have some reading up to do regarding screen-sizes, resolutions and the ergonomics of using computer-screens.
