The King Is Dead. Long Live The King! A Studio Computer Story.

[László]

To paraphrase what others have said here, the luggage has it's own special draw!

When I bought the BAE 1073 I saw that a luggage thing was available for it. So of course I bought it.

I'm that fool who can't resist the lure of that stuff. Vendors see me coming a mile away, and start rubbing their hands together.

 

[László]

Back to the curved Philips monitor for a moment, I love being able to see so much more on the DAW timeline, and being able to pull up more plugin windows while still seeing what it is I'm doing.

That's a good thing.

The image is merely good. I'm completely spoiled by the beautiful image on my 2020 iMac.

"You spent the egg money on the computer, cables, monitor, drive, the TB3 card for the interface, more software, and several microphones, dumbkopf. You're going to be in very deep doo-doo if you return the monitor and get something that meets your ludicrous and completely unnecessary standards, when this monitor permits greater efficiency in your actual work."

"I still have a week to decide whether to return it."

"OK, close your browser, put the mouse down, and step away from the keyboard with your hands in the air."

 

[Prina]

"I still have a week to decide whether to return it."

Do it.

Studio C-tastic is FULL of custom and/or world class gear so why look at something for hours per day that's not inspiring.

Each of these listed specs of the 34" curved model (346E2CUAE/27) listed on Phillips' website isn't great:
Brightness 300 cd/m²
Color gamut (typical) NTSC 99.5%*, sRGB 121.3%
Contrast ratio (typical) 3000:1
Maximum resolution 3440 x 1440 @ 100 Hz

And as you noted previously, no aluminum bezel/back. If no aluminum is a deal breaker then Apple may be the only option. If not, there are lots of options in price between the Phillips and Apple.

Consider the Steve Jobs philosophy. Steve didn't like license plates on his car so he kept buying a new car without plates and traded in the car for another new one before the older one was required to have plates. So keep cycling thru monitors 'till you find one you like.

And have a New Monitor Thread for each one.

 

[László]

Consider the Steve Jobs philosophy. Steve didn't like license plates on his car so he kept buying a new car without plates and traded in the car for another new one before the older one was required to have plates.

My grandfather liked to buy a new Cadillac every other year. He was pretty fussy about them. In 1958 he bought a silver Eldorado Brougham with a stainless steel roof and air suspension that had been made for, and exhibited at the US Auto Show. It was the cat's ass in 1958.

It had a one-off interior. He was happy as a kid on Christmas morning.

A day or two after getting the thing, he came over and took my brothers and me for a ride in the new car. I'll never forget how that thing looked. It was as though a space ship had landed in our driveway, as far as I was concerned. The tail fins alone were bigger than I was.

But it proved to be a mistake, because unfortunately, we were little kids, and my toddler brother managed to have a pee accident in the rear seat. Big wet spot on those pristine seats.

My grandfather didn't get angry, he simply took us home and pretended it was no big deal.

The very next day he took the car to the dealer and traded it in.

True story.

 

[László]

Do it.

Studio C-tastic is FULL of custom and/or world class gear so why look at something for hours per day that's not inspiring.

I'm giving it serious consideration.

The only thing is, neither Logic Pro nor Luna, the two DAWs I use, are much of anything to look at. One's mostly gray, the other's mostly black. They look like pretty much every other DAW on the market.

Once I switch on the computer, the only thing that makes me question my monitor choice is the freakin' wallpaper photo, or if I need to visit a website to download software, or listen to a demo.

So I'm really just being a spoiled, whiny baby.

"That's what you do."

"Sometimes."

"More than sometimes."

 

[sergiodeblanc]

I say buy a Slate Raven and a 90” TV from Walmart.

 

[László]

I say buy a Slate Raven and a 90” TV from Walmart.

Great ideas, actually. One nice thing about the Raven most don't think about (though you obviously have) is it's not in the way of the speakers like a computer screen can be,

So I thought about both alternatives, but they probably wouldn't fit my workflow.

The way I compose and edit, I need the computer keyboard and trackpad closest to me, then I reach over that for the MIDI keyboard, then farthest from me is the computer screen. It's not the easiest way to go, but it's the most efficient for scoring and editing to picture plus being able to see the DAW timeline, etc.

My workflow improved when I ditched the analog console around 2010, and put everything right in front, instead of rolling my chair all around to go from computer to console to keyboards, etc.

Even if I used an under-desk computer keyboard drawer (I have in the past), the MIDI keyboard alone puts the Raven would be too far away to use comfortably. I find that under-desk Midi controller drawers hit my knees. Putting the computer keyboard on top of the controller still would put the Raven too far away.

I don't think there's a really great solution to all the ergonomic problems at one time!

If all I was doing was tracking and mixing, it'd sure be a different story, but the keyboard controller just gets in the way too much.

I thought the Big Screen TV-plus-computer would be a great idea, and did a little research into it.

A composer friend tried it and said it was somewhat glitchy and slow. I figured that was a non-starter, but it just could have been his rig for all I know. In any case, I decided to play it safe and go with a computer monitor, knowing that would work OK.

'OK' is 'I can live with it'. But not ideal.

 

[László]

If not, there are lots of options in price between the Phillips and Apple.

I have a few more days to make a return if I want to. I could probably use some suggestions! Video specs are a mystery to me.

I wanted a curved monitor. I was steered toward a VA monitor because they're supposed to be better in brightly lit rooms like mine; apparently ISP and OLED monitors work best in a less bright location.

The differences between VA monitors didn't seem all that large, but there weren't a lot to compare in person. So, flying by the seat of my pants, I simply bought the one that I thought would look nicest sitting in the room, as opposed to having the best screen!

This is all the result of ignorance on my part.

I figured it'd be best to get USB-C or Thunderbolt connections, with a few USB ports in back for peripherals like my little fader box designed to work with orchestral libraries, a couple of MIDI controllers that I use, and an iLok. So the one I bought has that stuff.

That's about as far as I took it, and yes, ignorance is bliss, but also kinda...well...a great way to screw up.

 

[Prina]

I have a few more days to make a return if I want to. I could probably use some suggestions! Video specs are a mystery to me.

I wanted a curved monitor.

I need to revise my comment about there being a lot of monitors available between the Phillips and the Apple Studio Monitor. Looking at only curved monitors limits the options significantly. Also, you can evaluate the cost, aesthetic and acoustic implications in your set up far better than I can. I'll also refer to my #1 monitor/TV resource, rtings.com, with their detailed image measurements.

For size and image quality (IQ), you've already commented that you love the image of the Apple iMac and also appreciate the bigger screen size of the 34" Phillips. Logic and Luna are your main applications. So you're in the subset "office setting" for what people generally want in a monitor, which is what the Apple studio monitor is optimized for. So I'm making the assumption that that's what you want.

First, some background, and you already know at least some of this:
You're aware of the three different main panel technologies of OLED, VA and IPS. OLED isn't great because it can't get much brighter than 300 nits and because of its problems with burn-in of static images that are displayed on the same place of the monitor for long periods of time. VA panels have the advantage of better contrast when implemented well. IPS panels have the advantage of a larger viewing angle. Interestingly, Apple uses IPS panels for both MacBooks, where IPS is listed in the specs, and in the Apple Studio Monitor, but its specs don't list that. Apple is very selective about which specs they publish. They publish the ones that are great and often don't mention the ones that aren't.

Brightness is analogous to loudness. In both cases, the perception of each is approximately logarithmic so doubling the brightness would be equivalent to a 3 dB volume increase, noticeable but not huge.

Pixel density (pixels or dots per inch or ppi) is analogous to samples per second. In both cases, there is a level below which you start to notice a degradation of the signal with loss of high frequencies in audio and fine detail on the screen. There's also an analogous difference in both of these between the recording samples/second or ppi where any quantization error can be compounded by processing of the signal and the display format where are you seeing or hearing it directly and the same amount of resolution isn't required. For me, the sweet spot for display is around 160 ppi, which is the resolution of my 28" 4K monitor. On that you have to get really close to see any sort of pixelation, or graininess. The 226 PPI on my MacBook is great, but it's so fine that I really don't like it that much better than my main monitor. On one of my older monitors more than a decade ago I believe the resolution was 72 ppi and that would be unusable for me now.

In office settings, many of the other specs don't matter as much, including contrast, color gamut, frame rate, jitter since you're not playing video games or doing color grading for projection in a cinema setting.

Apple screens are bright (600 nits), great in pixel density (226 ppi as noted above) and with image/color accuracy (the colors are what they're supposed to be, within the limits of the colors that it can show). Using the rtings.com measurements, the Apple IPS panel isn't great with contrast and its color gamut (the ability to show pure/deep reds, greens, blues) also isn't great but since you're not video editing those attributes probably don't matter much.

The advantages of the Phillips are the curve and with the additional size. Why the image doesn't look as good to you is likely because of the lower brightness (300 nits) and lower sharpness (pixel density of 110 ppi so that you're probably seeing the individual pixels, some 'grain' in the image). As I had previously mentioned, if you brought your iMac back down to your studio those differences would probably be pretty obvious, as well as how important those and any other differences are. Also, you may be able to adjust the contrast & color so it may look better but the lower pixel density and brightness are locked in by the hardware.

For curved monitors that I noticed (not considering any Chinese ones) other 34" curved monitors looked like they have an IQ pretty similar to the Phillips. The two alternatives to the Apple Studio Monitor that rtings mentioned are both 40" curved monitors, LG and Dell. Both have 140 ppi sharpness. Both are 5.1K monitors like the Apple but with those pixels spread out over a larger area; the Phillips is only 3.4K. The Dell has a 600 nit peak brightness and better contrast than the Apple while the LG is like the Phillips in brightness & contrast. Both cost > $1K; the Dell is a bit more than the Apple.

Hope that helps.

If anything's not clear or you have other questions please ask.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Great ideas, actually. One nice thing about the Raven most don't think about (though you obviously have) is it's not in the way of the speakers like a computer screen can be,

So I thought about both alternatives, but they probably wouldn't fit my workflow.

The way I compose and edit, I need the computer keyboard and trackpad closest to me, then I reach over that for the MIDI keyboard, then farthest from me is the computer screen. It's not the easiest way to go, but it's the most efficient for scoring and editing to picture plus being able to see the DAW timeline, etc.

My workflow improved when I ditched the analog console around 2010, and put everything right in front, instead of rolling my chair all around to go from computer to console to keyboards, etc.

Even if I used an under-desk computer keyboard drawer (I have in the past), the MIDI keyboard alone puts the Raven would be too far away to use comfortably. I find that under-desk Midi controller drawers hit my knees. Putting the computer keyboard on top of the controller still would put the Raven too far away.

I don't think there's a really great solution to all the ergonomic problems at one time!

If all I was doing was tracking and mixing, it'd sure be a different story, but the keyboard controller just gets in the way too much.

I thought the Big Screen TV-plus-computer would be a great idea, and did a little research into it.

A composer friend tried it and said it was somewhat glitchy and slow. I figured that was a non-starter, but it just could have been his rig for all I know. In any case, I decided to play it safe and go with a computer monitor, knowing that would work OK.

'OK' is 'I can live with it'. But not ideal.

I really **** the bed with almost every decision/purchase when putting my present “studio” together.

I too am a keyboard centric when it comes to making tracks, so it has to be right in front of me.

Unfortunately I bought the wrong desk for that.

I also bought the wrong Mac for that. I honestly don’t know what I was thinking buying a MacBook again instead of a MacMini and a Raven… woulda cost the same or less. I guess I thought I was still gonna be traveling for music. Dumb.

So now I have my MacBook perched above my keyboard on the desk between my monitors.. or off to the side of the desk when need to access more than just arming tracks and/or hitting play/record.

It’s stupid. I’m stupid.

I do have a TV plastered on the wall behind my monitors, and your dude is kinda right about it being slower and somewhat glitchy, but it’s there more for broad stroke viewing so I’m not always having to put on or take off my glasses.

I dunno what I’m gonna do.

 

[bodia]

I dunno what I’m gonna do.

Wine and a Bravo movie?

 

[Prina]

It’s stupid. I’m stupid.

Welcome to the club. It's a massive learning curve .

Who always bought the perfect guitar?

 

[László]

I need to revise my comment about there being a lot of monitors available between the Phillips and the Apple Studio Monitor. Looking at only curved monitors limits the options significantly. Also, you can evaluate the cost, aesthetic and acoustic implications in your set up far better than I can. I'll also refer to my #1 monitor/TV resource, rtings.com, with their detailed image measurements.

For size and image quality (IQ), you've already commented that you love the image of the Apple iMac and also appreciate the bigger screen size of the 34" Phillips. Logic and Luna are your main applications. So you're in the subset "office setting" for what people generally want in a monitor, which is what the Apple studio monitor is optimized for. So I'm making the assumption that that's what you want.

First, some background, and you already know at least some of this:
You're aware of the three different main panel technologies of OLED, VA and IPS. OLED isn't great because it can't get much brighter than 300 nits and because of its problems with burn-in of static images that are displayed on the same place of the monitor for long periods of time. VA panels have the advantage of better contrast when implemented well. IPS panels have the advantage of a larger viewing angle. Interestingly, Apple uses IPS panels for both MacBooks, where IPS is listed in the specs, and in the Apple Studio Monitor, but its specs don't list that. Apple is very selective about which specs they publish. They publish the ones that are great and often don't mention the ones that aren't.

Brightness is analogous to loudness. In both cases, the perception of each is approximately logarithmic so doubling the brightness would be equivalent to a 3 dB volume increase, noticeable but not huge.

Pixel density (pixels or dots per inch or ppi) is analogous to samples per second. In both cases, there is a level below which you start to notice a degradation of the signal with loss of high frequencies in audio and fine detail on the screen. There's also an analogous difference in both of these between the recording samples/second or ppi where any quantization error can be compounded by processing of the signal and the display format where are you seeing or hearing it directly and the same amount of resolution isn't required. For me, the sweet spot for display is around 160 ppi, which is the resolution of my 28" 4K monitor. On that you have to get really close to see any sort of pixelation, or graininess. The 226 PPI on my MacBook is great, but it's so fine that I really don't like it that much better than my main monitor. On one of my older monitors more than a decade ago I believe the resolution was 72 ppi and that would be unusable for me now.

In office settings, many of the other specs don't matter as much, including contrast, color gamut, frame rate, jitter since you're not playing video games or doing color grading for projection in a cinema setting.

Apple screens are bright (600 nits), great in pixel density (226 ppi as noted above) and with image/color accuracy (the colors are what they're supposed to be, within the limits of the colors that it can show). Using the rtings.com measurements, the Apple IPS panel isn't great with contrast and its color gamut (the ability to show pure/deep reds, greens, blues) also isn't great but since you're not video editing those attributes probably don't matter much.

The advantages of the Phillips are the curve and with the additional size. Why the image doesn't look as good to you is likely because of the lower brightness (300 nits) and lower sharpness (pixel density of 110 ppi so that you're probably seeing the individual pixels, some 'grain' in the image). As I had previously mentioned, if you brought your iMac back down to your studio those differences would probably be pretty obvious, as well as how important those and any other differences are. Also, you may be able to adjust the contrast & color so it may look better but the lower pixel density and brightness are locked in by the hardware.

For curved monitors that I noticed (not considering any Chinese ones) other 34" curved monitors looked like they have an IQ pretty similar to the Phillips. The two alternatives to the Apple Studio Monitor that rtings mentioned are both 40" curved monitors, LG and Dell. Both have 140 ppi sharpness. Both are 5.1K monitors like the Apple but with those pixels spread out over a larger area; the Phillips is only 3.4K. The Dell has a 600 nit peak brightness and better contrast than the Apple while the LG is like the Phillips in brightness & contrast. Both cost > $1K; the Dell is a bit more than the Apple.

Hope that helps.

If anything's not clear or you have other questions please ask.

This was truly helpful!

Your comparison to music resolutions and dB levels is brilliant. It made those specs much easier for an audio guy to understand.

The curved panel idea did work for me. I like having the extra-wide screen real estate it provides. I can get an extra dozen measures into frame; that's proving to be helpful when editing. I don't have to scroll at all for most TV spots now. I can also have a bigger video window pulled up, and still see what's going on in the DAW.

So my workflow really is better with this 34" curved monitor than it was when working with a flat 27" panel.

However, a 40" monitor could be even better if it has improved specs!

My single concern with the larger curved monitor is acoustics. I'd have to move the speakers farther apart than I recently did to avoid the monitor interfering with the speakers' direct sound. As a result of that, they'd need to be farther away from me as well. You want them close to equidistant from each ear and from each other.

Experimenting with speaker position last week, I discovered that if the mix position is farther from the speakers by only 6-8", I'll need to reposition the side wall acoustical panels at the very least.

I don't know whether that'd be easy or difficult - the only way to know is to try it, I suppose.

I'm going to give some thought to whether looking at a larger and better screen - which would be cool, actually - justifies the changes I'd need to make to the acoustics. With the 34" panel, the changes were only an inch or three here or there.

Again, thanks for sharing your insights and helping me understand my options. Lots to think about!

 

[Prina]

I don't know whether that'd be easy or difficult - the only way to know is to try it, I suppose.

I'm going to give some thought to whether looking at a larger and better screen - which would be cool, actually - justifies the changes I'd need to make to the acoustics. With the 34" panel, the changes were only an inch or three here or there.

Again, thanks for sharing your insights and helping me understand my options. Lots to think about!

Regarding changing the monitor, "lots to think about" seems an understatement. Fortunately, it seems like your workflow and acoustics are working pretty well.

Now that you are familiar with some of the video terms, you may be able to define what you don't like about the monitor image (not bright enough, not sharp enough, colors seem off). And there are the options for different settings both on the monitor and on the Mac Studio. For example the Phillips 346E2CUAE/27 has a SmartImage setting:
EasyRead: Helps improve reading of text based application like PDF ebooks. By using a special algorithm which increases the contrast and boundary sharpness of text content....

Edit: That EasyRead setting might be extra helpful with Macs. I just read this (not yet confirmed thru other sources) which makes sense:
a 1440p monitor will look much worse on macOS than it would on Windows or Linux. This is partly caused by a lack of subpixel rendering for text on macOS, but it doesn't affect just text, with app icon graphics and such seemingly optimized for High-DPI resolutions

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Welcome to the club. It's a massive learning curve .

I wish I could say it was because I was a noob.

 

[László]

Regarding changing the monitor, "lots to think about" seems an understatement. Fortunately, it seems like your workflow and acoustics are working pretty well.

It comes down to being spoiled by the 27" 5K iMac display that's 500 nits instead of the Philips' 300; 5120 x 2880 resolution; with a glossy screen that seems to make things, I dunno, somehow livelier.

The matte screen on the curved monitor looks comparatively dull, but that could be the result of other factors.

However, the extra width of the curved display is just so damn useful in my work environment!

Dell makes a 40" 5K 'Ultrasharp' IPS curved monitor at the same resolution of the Apple monitor, with a thunderbolt hub that I plan to check out.

The specs on the Dell site don't mention what the brightness is. I'm going to assume it's 300 nits. I'm going to see if I can find one to take a look at; they seem to be available at Best Buy, so I'll go look.

If it isn't all that much better than what I have, I'll stick with the Philips. Iit's undoubtedly good enough for all practical purposes. If the Dell is awesome, I'll probably get one for the sheer entertainment value of having something fun to look at!

 

[Prina]

Dell makes a 40" 5K 'Ultrasharp' IPS curved monitor at the same resolution of the Apple monitor, with a thunderbolt hub that I plan to check out.

The specs on the Dell site don't mention what the brightness is. I'm going to assume it's 300 nits. I'm going to see if I can find one to take a look at; they seem to be available at Best Buy, so I'll go look.

Great monitor, according to the Rtings review here. 600 nits in HDR, contrast measured at double the Apple Studio Monitor.
Their comment comparing the two monitors:
The Apple Studio Display and the Dell U4025QW are both high-resolution monitors designed for productivity and editing work that work well on macOS. If detail and sharpness are important to you, then the Apple is the better choice, as it has a higher-resolution display. However, if you're looking for a large workspace and HDR capabilities, the Dell is the better option, as it has a much bigger screen and displays vivid colors in HDR.

At some point you may want to consider pushing the monitor further back as long as you can see it well. Two advantages of pushing it back 20% further from your eyes & ears. First, at the increased distance the equivalent pixel density would be around 165 ppi, right in my personal ppi sweet spot for a sharp monitor. Second, it should have around the same "acoustic angle" as the 34" Phillips and so wouldn't need a re-arrangement of the Event Opals or acoustic treatments.

This thread prodded me to dig out my display colorimeter and calibrate the screen on my MacBook Air. Using another acoustic analogy, the calibration was like doing a room treatment in taking the image quality to the next level. If you get one of the higher end IPS monitors feel free to PM me about calibrating it.

 

[László]

At some point you may want to consider pushing the monitor further back as long as you can see it well.

The reading glasses I had made following my cataract surgery in February of this year were made to be in focus exactly 40" from the monitor. It's where I had the screens set up previously both in my studio and den/office.

I wasn't expecting a computer change. So it goes.

With this prescription 1" closer or farther from the monitor makes things fuzzy. Fortunately, I no longer need glasses for distance, including driving. That's pretty amazing. I'm seeing as well as I did in high school.

The specs are all so strange in monitor-land. F'rinstance, my screen is Quad HD. Fine, but that's a different technology than HDR and refers to 1440 pixels, where HDR isn't about pixels; apparently it's based instead on how vivid/contrasty the colors are (assuming I have that right).

"Les, the time to learn all this stuff was before you bought the monitor."

"I still have two days to decide."

"Why not use it until you're ready for new glasses next year? At that point, get a new monitor, decide where it's gonna sit, THEN get the glasses that put you at an ideal distance from it."

"Not a bad idea."

 

[Prina]

Fine, but that's a different technology than HDR and refers to 1440 pixels, where HDR isn't about pixels; apparently it's based instead on how vivid/contrasty the colors are (assuming I have that right).

Very good. The 1440 pixels refers to the screen resolution or how many dots are on the screen whereas the dynamic range, (HDR or SDR) refers to the brightness and color capability of each individual pixel. An HDR capable monitor TV should, and to a greater or lesser extent will, be able to display a wider range of colors and have a greater peak brightness. In the case of the Dell monitor, it looks like it can go to 450 nits in normal (SDR) mode and 600 nits in HDR mode. And apparently Macs have the ability to output an HDR signal to external monitors by changing the display settings. But HDR isn't necessary for an image to look great. Almost all Apple monitors don't even have HDR capability.

Using a quote (again) from the Rtings website:
HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the name suggests, introduces a wider range of colors and brightness levels compared to SDR (Standard Dynamic Range) signals. HDR signals send metadata to your TV, which is a list of instructions for the TV to display content properly. The source tells the TV what exact color to display at which exact brightness level, whereas SDR is limited to a range of brightness and colors. For example, with SDR, a car would be ordered to apply "full throttle" or "50% throttle." Instead, the HDR car would be asked to "go to 120 mph" and "go to 40 mph." Some vehicles would provide a worse experience than others working towards this task, and most might not even succeed. In the case of TVs, SDR is a specific set power, while HDR is a set goal.

 

[László]

Very good. The 1440 pixels refers to the screen resolution or how many dots are on the screen whereas the dynamic range, (HDR or SDR) refers to the brightness and color capability of each individual pixel. An HDR capable monitor TV should, and to a greater or lesser extent will, be able to display a wider range of colors and have a greater peak brightness. In the case of the Dell monitor, it looks like it can go to 450 nits in normal (SDR) mode and 600 nits in HDR mode. And apparently Macs have the ability to output an HDR signal to external monitors by changing the display settings. But HDR isn't necessary for an image to look great. Almost all Apple monitors don't even have HDR capability.

Using a quote (again) from the Rtings website:
HDR (High Dynamic Range), as the name suggests, introduces a wider range of colors and brightness levels compared to SDR (Standard Dynamic Range) signals. HDR signals send metadata to your TV, which is a list of instructions for the TV to display content properly. The source tells the TV what exact color to display at which exact brightness level, whereas SDR is limited to a range of brightness and colors. For example, with SDR, a car would be ordered to apply "full throttle" or "50% throttle." Instead, the HDR car would be asked to "go to 120 mph" and "go to 40 mph." Some vehicles would provide a worse experience than others working towards this task, and most might not even succeed. In the case of TVs, SDR is a specific set power, while HDR is a set goal.

I love learning this stuff!