Any good LCD monitor for audio work ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi. I'm considering a TFT monitor (flat LCD computer screen)for my
small studio, but haven't found any thread about the ideal specs for
such choice.
I would appreciate any recommendation for or against particular
models, and would very much like to learn which features I should look
for when and if buying one.

The issues that occur to me are:

SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
case I can't afford a larger one ? What's the advantage of a larger
one anyway ? Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
which text is still good ?

ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
tracks ?

CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?

HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?

NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
supplies tend to).

DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?

VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?

HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
reviewers complaining against the lack of it.

COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?

Thanks for any word of advice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:00:53 GMT, visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br wrote:

>Hi. I'm considering a TFT monitor (flat LCD computer screen)for my
>small studio, but haven't found any thread about the ideal specs for
>such choice.
>I would appreciate any recommendation for or against particular
>models, and would very much like to learn which features I should look
>for when and if buying one.
>
>The issues that occur to me are:
>

The Dell 17" & 19" LCD monitors are *very* nice, though I do not know
who manufactures them. I think ViewSonic. There's also a Xerox
monitor that's gotten very high marks recently.

>SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
>case I can't afford a larger one ? What's the advantage of a larger
>one anyway ? Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
>which text is still good ?

It really comes down to whatever you're used to, and that your eyes
can see comfortably. I'm comfortable at 1280x1024 and higher, mostly
because my vision is naturally 20/15ish. ;-)

>ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
>think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
>tracks ?

They do exist, but I haven't played with them much. I don't see how
it could hurt, though.

>CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
>going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?

Well, the contract ratios are usually theoretic, vs. actual. Like any
equipment, it never hurts to lay eyes on it first, to see how it
stacks against something else.

>HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
>LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?

Much. More importantly, they also consume less power.

>NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
>supplies tend to).

Not that I've noticed, but I've never had one in a quiet room.

>DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?

Not really, but I'd aim for DVI simply for the faster refresh rates
and more accurate color.

>VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
>Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?

*wince* Err... I usually like to have as much work taken off the CPU
as possible, so I aim for fairly serious video cards. This does not
mean get the $500 top of the line video card, as most high end video
cards will only really help with gaming or video applications.

>HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
>reviewers complaining against the lack of it.

Ergonomics should never be completely ignored, particularly if you're
going to be staring at this thing for long times. Ideally, you're
supposed to actually look slightly down at the monitor, but some
people prefer slightly up (hardly the ideal position for audio).

>COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
>environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
>sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?

This goes back to personal preference, but I usually get black
monitors, as the frame does tend to disappear to the person using it.

Check out Tom's Hardware for some good monitor reviews.
jtougas

listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go

e.e. cummings

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:35:11 -0500, jtougas
<jatougasNOSPAM@charter.net> wrote:

>Ergonomics should never be completely ignored, particularly if you're
>going to be staring at this thing for long times. Ideally, you're
>supposed to actually look slightly down at the monitor, but some
>people prefer slightly up (hardly the ideal position for audio).

Eye level or slightly above eye level is probably better, as it will
hel[ maintain your posture, especially with long spells at the
computer.

Al

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br wrote:
> SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
> case I can't afford a larger one ?

Yes, the difference is that 19-inch is too small, and 17-inch is
way too small. At least in my opinion.

Seriously, though, the bigger the monitor the better. If you're
going to be looking at it all the time, there is no reason you
need to be squinting trying to read stuff.

> Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
> which text is still good ?

My own personal opinion is that bigger is always better. In the
worst case, you might actually conceivably end up with a monitor
that is so big you feel like you need to sit back from it a ways.
But this is still a good thing, because a major source of eye
strain is sitting too close to computer monitors, which causes
your eyes to have to be all tense focusing on something nearby.
One of the things you learn as a computer guy is that the best
thing you can do for your eyes is to focus on something far away
(preferably way off in the distance) several times an hour. It
gives your eyes a chance to relax.

> ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
> think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
> tracks ?

Yes, there are certainly 16:9 models. Apple has made several of them
for quite a while.

> CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
> going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?

Don't know.

> HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
> LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?

They definitely use less energy. My 21" CRT monitor uses something
like 150W when showing a mostly-white screen, which is really quite
a lot of heat. I don't think a comparable LCD would use nearly
as much.

> NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
> supplies tend to).

Don't know.

> DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?

One big difference between LCD and CRT monitors is that LCDs are
made up of discrete elements. So on an LCD whose native resolution
is 1280x1024, there are really 1280 elements in each row. Meanwhile,
on CRT monitors, the gun sweeps horizontally across and recreates
an analog signal across the glass.

So, the upshot is, if the pixels are not quite exactly evenly spaced
on an analog RGB signal, this just leads to a very slight and almost
totally imperceptible geometric distortion on a CRT. But on an LCD,
since the display is inherently digital, the display is in effect
digitizing the analog pixel data from an RGB connection. When it's
time to draw a given pixel, it has to figure out what color value
to use, and then move on to the next pixel.

The point is, things can go wrong in this process of figuring out
what pixels seem to be present in an RGB signal and then mapping
those onto the physical pixels of an LCD. Hopefully newer monitors
have better ways of coping with this, but with some older LCDs,
I've actually seen fuzzy, shimmery vertical lines about 5 or 10
pixels wide where it looks like the LCD is flip-flopping between
one pixel and another from frame to frame. It looks horrible,
and it makes text difficult to read. On the monitor I'm thinking
of, there was an adjustment to minimize this, so with careful
tweaking I was able to make it mostly go away. But, with DVI,
as far as I can tell these problems simply don't exist at all.

So, I would not even consider using anything other than DVI
with an LCD monitor, personally.

Likewise, I wouldn't even consider running at anything other
than the display's native resolution. Otherwise, you're scaling
the image, and it's going to look pretty bad in some cases.

> VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
> Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?

It's probably fine. Except for the issue of VGA (RGB) vs. DVI
outputs, I don't see why it would make any difference at all.

> HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
> reviewers complaining against the lack of it.

You don't get that with a CRT monitor, so it can't be absolutely
critical. You should be able to use an old physics textbook (which
are usually plenty thick...) with an LCD monitor just as well as
you can with a CRT.

> COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
> environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
> sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?

No idea on that. I guess go with whatever fits your personal taste.

While we're talking about LCD monitors, one that I've been looking
at is the Samsung 213T. It has 21.3" viewable area, it has a DVI input,
and it's going for about $750 online these days. And pricescan.com's
price trend graph shows that the price is still steadily going down.
I went and looked at one at Fry's a couple of times, and the picture
seems pretty nice. You have to be prepared to use 1600x1200 resolution
(since that's its native resolution), but with 21.3" viewable area,
1600x1200 is perfectly usable, and you can fit a LOT on the screen
without straining to see it.

- Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Well, let's only address the 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio. You do realize that,
for all practical purposes, you won't see a major advantage in computer work
because a 16:9 aspect ratio is just a stretched 4:3. Advantage? It looks
different but you don't get more information on the screen. Aspect ratios
are built around the input from such sources as video or transferred film
(still video), and even at that, effectively you loose pixel resolution to
use the same CCD in 16:9 during recording. Anything that works with typical
NTSC video signals simply has less pixel resolution, although the width of
the field is increased. So while it's not really pertinent to your direct
question, here's a link to understand the difference between 16:9 and 4:3
(http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/aspint.htm).

So now you can just look at higher resolution LCDs. I'd look at a 1280
X1024 17" monitor before I'd purchase a 1024 X 768 19".

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

<visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:4234b1b8.282769300@News.Individual.NET...
> Hi. I'm considering a TFT monitor (flat LCD computer screen)for my
> small studio, but haven't found any thread about the ideal specs for
> such choice.
> I would appreciate any recommendation for or against particular
> models, and would very much like to learn which features I should look
> for when and if buying one.
>
> The issues that occur to me are:
>
> SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
> case I can't afford a larger one ? What's the advantage of a larger
> one anyway ? Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
> which text is still good ?
>
> ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
> think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
> tracks ?
>
> CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
> going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?
>
> HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
> LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?
>
> NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
> supplies tend to).
>
> DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?
>
> VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
> Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?
>
> HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
> reviewers complaining against the lack of it.
>
> COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
> environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
> sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?
>
> Thanks for any word of advice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:-L-dnS_uBcq-BKjfRVn-3g@rcn.net
> Well, let's only address the 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio. You do
> realize that, for all practical purposes, you won't see a major
> advantage in computer work because a 16:9 aspect ratio is just a
> stretched 4:3.

A typical 16:9 LCD still has the same shaped pixels, but it has more of them
in the horizontal direction for a given number of vertical pixels. LCDs are
typically made up in really big sheets, which are cut down into whatever
standard size chunks that are free of errors such as dead pixels.

This gets strange if you don't understand the underlying process. The rules
of the game is that LCDs are rated primarily by diagonal dimension, and
secondarily in numbers of pixels.

For example, a 22" 16:9 LCD might have 1280 by 720 pixels. A standard 4:3
LCD with 720 vertical pixels would have more like 960 horizontal pixels and
would be correspondingly narrower. This would probably be a 12" diagonal 4:3
LCD. Obviously more information is displayed by the monitor with more
pixels.

The slightly hidden agenda is that a 22" 4:3 monitor would probably have no
less than 1920 x 1280 pixels. If you had a 16:9 monitor witht he same number
of vertical pixels it would have about 2500 horizontal pixels and would also
have a correspondingly longer diagonal measurement.

So what do you compare? Do you compare the 1920 x 1280 4:3 to the 2500 x
1280 16:9, or do you compare the 19" 4:3 to the 19" 16:9?


>Advantage? It looks different but you don't get more
> information on the screen.

Since there can be more pixels and more length in the horizonal direction,
you can display longer time-spans of the same number of tracks

> Aspect ratios are built around the input
> from such sources as video or transferred film (still video), and
> even at that, effectively you loose pixel resolution to use the same
> CCD in 16:9 during recording. Anything that works with typical NTSC
> video signals simply has less pixel resolution, although the width of
> the field is increased. So while it's not really pertinent to your
> direct question, here's a link to understand the difference between
> 16:9 and 4:3 (http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/aspint.htm).
>
> So now you can just look at higher resolution LCDs. I'd look at a
> 1280 X1024 17" monitor before I'd purchase a 1024 X 768 19".

Totally agreed. When the cash hit the countertop, I bought a 1920 x 1280 19"
4:3. As I mostly use it to edit text, I run it as a 1280 x 1920 portrait
mode screen. If I used it to edit audio, I'd seriously consider rotating it
90 degrees, back to its standard format. But then again if I was editing a
lot of tracks...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Well, let's only address the 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio. You do
> realize that, for all practical purposes, you won't see a major
> advantage in computer work because a 16:9 aspect ratio is just a
> stretched 4:3.

Unlikely. For example, the Dell Inspiron 8500 notebook PC I
am writing this on has a native resolution of 1680x1050.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you look at a standard CCD, or a 3CCD camcorder like I have, there is no
difference in the total number of pixels, and a switch simply isn't going to
change that structure. The same is true on a NON-True 16:9 pixel rated
widescreen LCD. I have a Planar 17" widescreen LCD for video editing on my
AMD64. The pixels stay the same size, but the information is spread over
them in a manner that represents a 16:9 aspect ratio, but it's still the
same information, hence less overall resolution. It might well look nicer,
but that's an aesthetic, isn't it?

For instance, I have the above 3CCD camera and can flip a switch to 16:9,
but only the field of recording is changed. In fact, I lose resolution due
to the use of less than the total range of pixels.

So it seems obvious to me that the presentation of that 16:9 video onto a
screen able to handle 16:9 and 4:3 will still be of less resolution than if
it were presented at 4:3, even if the image would look squashed in the
vertical.

What I'm saying is that the presentation on either 16:9 or 4:3 is dependant
upon the source, and that using a computer based output at 16:9 doesn't
present any real advantages to doing audio work unless you like the mixer
spread out a little more. Not more information, just a different viewpoint
of the same information.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:nZadnbG4vMYVPqjfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:-L-dnS_uBcq-BKjfRVn-3g@rcn.net
> > Well, let's only address the 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio. You do
> > realize that, for all practical purposes, you won't see a major
> > advantage in computer work because a 16:9 aspect ratio is just a
> > stretched 4:3.
>
> A typical 16:9 LCD still has the same shaped pixels, but it has more of
them
> in the horizontal direction for a given number of vertical pixels. LCDs
are
> typically made up in really big sheets, which are cut down into whatever
> standard size chunks that are free of errors such as dead pixels.
>
> This gets strange if you don't understand the underlying process. The
rules
> of the game is that LCDs are rated primarily by diagonal dimension, and
> secondarily in numbers of pixels.
>
> For example, a 22" 16:9 LCD might have 1280 by 720 pixels. A standard 4:3
> LCD with 720 vertical pixels would have more like 960 horizontal pixels
and
> would be correspondingly narrower. This would probably be a 12" diagonal
4:3
> LCD. Obviously more information is displayed by the monitor with more
> pixels.
>
> The slightly hidden agenda is that a 22" 4:3 monitor would probably have
no
> less than 1920 x 1280 pixels. If you had a 16:9 monitor witht he same
number
> of vertical pixels it would have about 2500 horizontal pixels and would
also
> have a correspondingly longer diagonal measurement.
>
> So what do you compare? Do you compare the 1920 x 1280 4:3 to the 2500 x
> 1280 16:9, or do you compare the 19" 4:3 to the 19" 16:9?
>
>
> >Advantage? It looks different but you don't get more
> > information on the screen.
>
> Since there can be more pixels and more length in the horizonal direction,
> you can display longer time-spans of the same number of tracks
>
> > Aspect ratios are built around the input
> > from such sources as video or transferred film (still video), and
> > even at that, effectively you loose pixel resolution to use the same
> > CCD in 16:9 during recording. Anything that works with typical NTSC
> > video signals simply has less pixel resolution, although the width of
> > the field is increased. So while it's not really pertinent to your
> > direct question, here's a link to understand the difference between
> > 16:9 and 4:3 (http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/aspint.htm).
> >
> > So now you can just look at higher resolution LCDs. I'd look at a
> > 1280 X1024 17" monitor before I'd purchase a 1024 X 768 19".
>
> Totally agreed. When the cash hit the countertop, I bought a 1920 x 1280
19"
> 4:3. As I mostly use it to edit text, I run it as a 1280 x 1920 portrait
> mode screen. If I used it to edit audio, I'd seriously consider rotating
it
> 90 degrees, back to its standard format. But then again if I was editing a
> lot of tracks...
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:113ba30fhcige19@corp.supernews.com

>> Well, let's only address the 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio. You do
>> realize that, for all practical purposes, you won't see a major
>> advantage in computer work because a 16:9 aspect ratio is just a
>> stretched 4:3.

> Unlikely. For example, the Dell Inspiron 8500 notebook PC I
> am writing this on has a native resolution of 1680x1050.

That's my experience. The 16:9 LCDs I've worked with had pixels in 16:9
proportions. Given how badly LCDs seem to work in non-native formats, I just
don't go there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"jtougas" <jatougasNOSPAM@charter.net> wrote:
>
> [...] I'd aim for DVI simply for the faster refresh rates


Irrelevant in the case of LCD monitors. They're 60Hz native.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> [...] I would not even consider using anything other than DVI
> with an LCD monitor, personally.


My most recent system has both analog and DVI outputs from the video
card and both analog and DVI inputs on the LCD monitor (Sony 17"). I
compared the two, and decided that while the DVI was somewhat better, it
was not enough better to justify the increased cost. Diminishing
returns and all that.

I'd probably choose DVI again in the future just on principle, but it
would not be a deal-breaker for me to give it up to get something else.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch


Much to my surprise, I discovered that (for me) a 17" is more
comfortable than a 19" (assuming both 1280x1024). I have my monitor
fairly close, 24" or so. The 19" is big enough that my head/eyes have
to "hunt" to specific items on the screen. The 17" is closer to fitting
within my field of vision, requiring less head head/eye motion. It's
hard to describe, but it's an regonomic reality for me.



> ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish
> to think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view
> of tracks ?

Depends. Is the horizontal resolution higher? If you're comparing a
4:3 @ 1280x1024 to a 16:9 @ 1280x769, no. You'd actually be sacrificing
vertical resolution while retaining identical horizontal information.

Also, while 16:9 could show more of the timeline, it would show fewer
tracks at a time.



> DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?

I compared them and decided that DVI is better, but not enough better
that I'd worry too much.

Based on some casual observations, it *seems* that DVI may be better at
rejecting interference in long monitor cable runs though. Note that I
haven't used good scientific method in making this observation, so it
may or may not be completely valid.




> VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
> Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?

I'd use a "decent" (as opposed to "exotic") AGP video card just to free
up RAM and reduce internal conflicts.



> HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
> reviewers complaining against the lack of it.

Well, it's not like CRTs were height adjustable either, so I don't
understand the complaint. It sure is a lot easier to put an LCD on an
arm than a CRT.



Two additional notes:

Colour accuracy is better on a CRT than an LCD. I dunno why, but it is.
If you're doing photo editing, a CRT is (sadly) still better.

An LCD monitor really has to be run at its native resolution. Anything
else looks really bad.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 22:00:53 GMT, visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br wrote:

>Hi. I'm considering a TFT monitor (flat LCD computer screen)for my
>small studio, but haven't found any thread about the ideal specs for
>such choice.
>I would appreciate any recommendation for or against particular
>models, and would very much like to learn which features I should look
>for when and if buying one.
>
>The issues that occur to me are:
>
>SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
>case I can't afford a larger one ? What's the advantage of a larger
>one anyway ? Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
>which text is still good ?

Roughly speaking, you can buy a pair of 17" LCDs for the price of one
19" LCD. With a Matrox dual-head video adapter, I can set the two
monitors side-by-side and display audio tracks on one monitor, with
virtual mixer surface and plug=ins on the other. This works well for
me.

>ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
>think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
>tracks ?

No gain in the different form factor. Works better for movies.
>
>CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
>going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?
>
Mine are 450:1, and quite adequate for my purpose. Higher contrast
might be better if I were watching movies. Higher speed is better for
games. Neither makes much difference in my work.

>HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
>LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?

All LDS are MUCH cooler and waste less energy than ANY CRTs.

>NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
>supplies tend to).

Mine (Samsung) are OK. LCDs radiate much less electromagnetic
interference than CRTs. No interference from speaker magnets, either.
>
>DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?

No

>VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
>Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?

Yes. Hmmm, laptop. I guess that shoots down my dual monitor
suggestion.
>
>HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
>reviewers complaining against the lack of it.

Your neck will feel less tired if the monitor is at the right height.
However, the right height is usually lower than your desktop. You
almost never need to raise a monitor higher.

>COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
>environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
>sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?

Ask you interior designer. I buy whatever colour is on sale.
>
>Thanks for any word of advice.

You're welcome.

Mike T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Provided resolution is the same, 19' you can keep further from your
eys than you could do with 17", because picture on 19" is bigger.

If you have one monitor physicaly built in dimensions W16:9H ratio and
other in W4:3H and provided pixels dimmensions are same (If you take a
look at some public TV up the wall on some building you'll notice
pixels are rather big. You can't fit many hundreds of those in your
PC monitor) you compare monitors as follows.

First you take one edge, horizontal, or vertical is of common size for
both monitors.

Say horizontal edge is 16 inches long for both monitors, vertical
would be:

9" with 16:9 (16" x 9")
12" with 4:3 (16" x 12 ")
Claerly ther's more room for pixels in 4:3

Now lets say Vertical edge is 9", horizontal would be

16" for 16:9 (16" x 9")
12" for 4:3 (12" x 9")
Ther's more room for pixels in 16:9

Same goes for resolution.
If you have monitor with 1024 pixels along the longer edge (usually
horizontal), you'll have

576 "vertical" pixels in 16:9
768 .................... in 3:4

If you have monitor with 576 pixels along the shorter edge (usually
vertical), you'll have

1024 horizontal pixels in 16:9
768 ........................4:3

Of course, whatever your monitor have physicaly, you can make it show
whatever resolution you want (almost), but it will do so by stretching
the picture, not always proportionaly.

Go for two head graphic card and two monitors.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Recently I picked up a Samsung 213 21" LCD which I love. Logic is a screen
hog, this makes life easier.
--Lou Gimenez
The Music Lab
2" 24track w all the Goodies
www.musiclabnyc.com



> From: Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:23:48 GMT
> Subject: Re: Any good LCD monitor for audio work ?
>
> visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br wrote:
>> SIZE: is there much of a difference between 17-inch and 19-inch in
>> case I can't afford a larger one ?
>
> Yes, the difference is that 19-inch is too small, and 17-inch is
> way too small. At least in my opinion.
>
> Seriously, though, the bigger the monitor the better. If you're
> going to be looking at it all the time, there is no reason you
> need to be squinting trying to read stuff.
>
>> Isn't there a "sweet spot" size for a 1280x resolution in
>> which text is still good ?
>
> My own personal opinion is that bigger is always better. In the
> worst case, you might actually conceivably end up with a monitor
> that is so big you feel like you need to sit back from it a ways.
> But this is still a good thing, because a major source of eye
> strain is sitting too close to computer monitors, which causes
> your eyes to have to be all tense focusing on something nearby.
> One of the things you learn as a computer guy is that the best
> thing you can do for your eyes is to focus on something far away
> (preferably way off in the distance) several times an hour. It
> gives your eyes a chance to relax.
>
>> ASPECT RATIO: are there 16:9 models out there ? am I being foolish to
>> think that such form factor would allow a better perspective view of
>> tracks ?
>
> Yes, there are certainly 16:9 models. Apple has made several of them
> for quite a while.
>
>> CONTRAST: I've read that 400:1 is minimum and that there is no benefit
>> going over 600:1. Does that match real usage experience ?
>
> Don't know.
>
>> HEAT: does any particular model cause less heat than others? I suppose
>> LCD screens are cooler than CRTs, right ?
>
> They definitely use less energy. My 21" CRT monitor uses something
> like 150W when showing a mostly-white screen, which is really quite
> a lot of heat. I don't think a comparable LCD would use nearly
> as much.
>
>> NOISE : do any model makes more noise than others (I hear power
>> supplies tend to).
>
> Don't know.
>
>> DVI and/or RGB : for audio work, does this matter much ?
>
> One big difference between LCD and CRT monitors is that LCDs are
> made up of discrete elements. So on an LCD whose native resolution
> is 1280x1024, there are really 1280 elements in each row. Meanwhile,
> on CRT monitors, the gun sweeps horizontally across and recreates
> an analog signal across the glass.
>
> So, the upshot is, if the pixels are not quite exactly evenly spaced
> on an analog RGB signal, this just leads to a very slight and almost
> totally imperceptible geometric distortion on a CRT. But on an LCD,
> since the display is inherently digital, the display is in effect
> digitizing the analog pixel data from an RGB connection. When it's
> time to draw a given pixel, it has to figure out what color value
> to use, and then move on to the next pixel.
>
> The point is, things can go wrong in this process of figuring out
> what pixels seem to be present in an RGB signal and then mapping
> those onto the physical pixels of an LCD. Hopefully newer monitors
> have better ways of coping with this, but with some older LCDs,
> I've actually seen fuzzy, shimmery vertical lines about 5 or 10
> pixels wide where it looks like the LCD is flip-flopping between
> one pixel and another from frame to frame. It looks horrible,
> and it makes text difficult to read. On the monitor I'm thinking
> of, there was an adjustment to minimize this, so with careful
> tweaking I was able to make it mostly go away. But, with DVI,
> as far as I can tell these problems simply don't exist at all.
>
> So, I would not even consider using anything other than DVI
> with an LCD monitor, personally.
>
> Likewise, I wouldn't even consider running at anything other
> than the display's native resolution. Otherwise, you're scaling
> the image, and it's going to look pretty bad in some cases.
>
>> VIDEO CARD : how important this is for LCD monitors in the studio.
>> Could I get buy with my laptop's 16-meg board ?
>
> It's probably fine. Except for the issue of VGA (RGB) vs. DVI
> outputs, I don't see why it would make any difference at all.
>
>> HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT: how important is this ? I read generic computer
>> reviewers complaining against the lack of it.
>
> You don't get that with a CRT monitor, so it can't be absolutely
> critical. You should be able to use an old physics textbook (which
> are usually plenty thick...) with an LCD monitor just as well as
> you can with a CRT.
>
>> COLOR: does any specific color match better a typical studio
>> environment ? I tend to think that black better gets the frame out of
>> sight and that silver finishing tends to wear-off quicker ? Is it so ?
>
> No idea on that. I guess go with whatever fits your personal taste.
>
> While we're talking about LCD monitors, one that I've been looking
> at is the Samsung 213T. It has 21.3" viewable area, it has a DVI input,
> and it's going for about $750 online these days. And pricescan.com's
> price trend graph shows that the price is still steadily going down.
> I went and looked at one at Fry's a couple of times, and the picture
> seems pretty nice. You have to be prepared to use 1600x1200 resolution
> (since that's its native resolution), but with 21.3" viewable area,
> 1600x1200 is perfectly usable, and you can fit a LOT on the screen
> without straining to see it.
>
> - Logan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <msfb31tf8ahod0o5b3s4mc26iul061sefn@4ax.com> miket@invalid.net writes:

> Roughly speaking, you can buy a pair of 17" LCDs for the price of one
> 19" LCD. With a Matrox dual-head video adapter, I can set the two
> monitors side-by-side and display audio tracks on one monitor, with
> virtual mixer surface and plug=ins on the other. This works well for
> me.

I've seen this said before, and I've seen this sort of display before.
Exactly what do you have to do in order to make this work? There isn't
a button that says "put this window on Monitor 2" is there?

My only "two monitor" experience is to connect an external monitor to
my laptop computer. Seems that I read something obscure (perhaps in
the Windows display setup screen) suggesting that I could display
different windows on the two monitors, but I could never figure out
how to do that.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
> I've seen this said before, and I've seen this sort of display before.
> Exactly what do you have to do in order to make this work? There isn't
> a button that says "put this window on Monitor 2" is there?
>
> My only "two monitor" experience is to connect an external monitor to
> my laptop computer. Seems that I read something obscure (perhaps in
> the Windows display setup screen) suggesting that I could display
> different windows on the two monitors, but I could never figure out
> how to do that.


http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/faq.asp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Apparently you just have to come over here, Mike. I have two dual head
systems running on three monitors, and it works. You'll be surprised.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110825645k@trad...
>
> In article <msfb31tf8ahod0o5b3s4mc26iul061sefn@4ax.com> miket@invalid.net
writes:
>
> > Roughly speaking, you can buy a pair of 17" LCDs for the price of one
> > 19" LCD. With a Matrox dual-head video adapter, I can set the two
> > monitors side-by-side and display audio tracks on one monitor, with
> > virtual mixer surface and plug=ins on the other. This works well for
> > me.
>
> I've seen this said before, and I've seen this sort of display before.
> Exactly what do you have to do in order to make this work? There isn't
> a button that says "put this window on Monitor 2" is there?
>
> My only "two monitor" experience is to connect an external monitor to
> my laptop computer. Seems that I read something obscure (perhaps in
> the Windows display setup screen) suggesting that I could display
> different windows on the two monitors, but I could never figure out
> how to do that.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<visitor2NOSPAM@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:4234b1b8.282769300@News.Individual.NET...
> Hi. I'm considering a TFT monitor (flat LCD computer screen)for my
> small studio, but haven't found any thread about the ideal specs for
> such choice.
> I would appreciate any recommendation for or against particular
> models, and would very much like to learn which features I should look
> for when and if buying one.

> Thanks for any word of advice.

I went with the HP Pavilion 19", but that's because I got a refurb employee
discount at a really good price for a brand new monitor. Some of the refurbs
are just monitors that delivery was attempted 3 times on and were sent back.

Glenn D.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:07:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>I don't know that CRTs really have a native format. They have limits at the
>extremes, but the optimum use points are pretty broad. With LCDs, the
>optimum use point is just that, a point. One set of parameters, like or or
>leave it.

Thanks, I'd expressed it poorly. Color CRT's have a granularity too,
but it's smaller and there's no way to take any advantage of it. It's
just a "noise background" to stay out of.

Modern digital displays are comparatively coarse, but the pixels
can be addressed individually and without geometric or convergence
issues. The coarseness, however, means ya've gotta play by their
rules.

Chris Hornbeck
"I just don't think it's right to have a club like this.
It ain't in the Bible," said Gary Colwell, 18, a brick mason
who grew up in the area. "We see them walking around holding
hands, and it makes everybody feel uncomfortable."

 

[David]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Around Christmas I got an Apple 23" (1920 x 1200) and it's wonderful.
Ya, it's waaay too good for audio work.

How many hours do you spend staring at the f&%king screen?? If you've
got the dough and a G4 or a G5, spend it.

If you're a real pig, get the 30".

When do they start making hologram screens?? I want one of those.





David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

CelebrationSound@aol.com
www.CelebrationSound.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Would this one work with my X31 laptop, wouldn't the wide-aspect make
things fuzzy?
I'll be using it for Sonar.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <39mq2mF612op5U1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> > Exactly what do you have to do in order to make this work? There isn't
> > a button that says "put this window on Monitor 2" is there?

[dual monitors]

> http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/faq.asp

Sorry, I'm stoopid. Where am I supposed to look among those couple of
dozen topics? Is there a simple explanation as to what makes this
work? Or is it specific to a program or to a card? (in which case I
know I'm asking too much)

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Would this one work with my X31 laptop, wouldn't the wide-aspect make
things fuzzy?
I'll be using it for Sonar.

DELL UltraSharp 2005FPW 20.1-inch Wide Aspect Flat Panel LCD Monitor
at:
http://tinyurl.com/6999d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110825645k@trad

> I've seen this said before, and I've seen this sort of display before.
> Exactly what do you have to do in order to make this work?

You need two monitors and a PC with either two video cards or one video card
that incorporates the function of two video cards.

Once you've booted the machine, only one of the displays will be active. You
have to go into display properties and activate the second monitor and
extend the desktop onto the second monitor.

In display properties under settings there is a shematic of your displays.
At this point the second one will be shaded out. Right click it, and select
attached. It will become unshaded and have a highlighting line around it.
There will be a check box for extending the desktop to this monitor.
There's another checkbox for making the highlighted monitor the primary
monitor. This means that you can reverse the roles of the two monitors.

> There isn't a button that says "put this window on Monitor 2" is there?

No, its a drag and drop move. Two place a window or part of a window on a
given monitor, drag the window to get the desired effect.

> My only "two monitor" experience is to connect an external monitor to
> my laptop computer. Seems that I read something obscure (perhaps in
> the Windows display setup screen) suggesting that I could display
> different windows on the two monitors, but I could never figure out
> how to do that.

Sounds like you didn't perform the steps above. If you do the steps above,
when that message would usually be displayed, the second monitor instead
start displaying part of the desktop.