OT: Triple head video cards

[DominicPerry]

Any recommendations for triple head video cards please?

Dominic

[Warren]

Any recommendations for triple head video cards please?

Dominic

Matrox P750 works great no issues in 2 years and going:D

[DominicPerry]

Thanks Warren.

Dominic

[Dave Labrecque]

Matrox P750 works great no issues in 2 years and going:D

Oh, if you mean by triple head two monitors and a TV, then, yeah, I'd agree. The only thing I've found to be a little bothersome is that some of the application-specific settings (in the Matrox PowerDesk control applet) for window/monitor placement don't seem to work.

[Perry]

I'd just add that you should consider what size screens you plan to use and make sure that they will be supported as you expect. There are some limitations.

If you're only needing triple head for 19" LCDs (for example) that might be OK. But, if you plan to have any very large screens, like 23"/24" at high resolution, this may affect what you can do with the other two heads. There's only so much 'power' available to distribute between all the screens. I looked at this at one point and what I wanted to do wasn't supported by the Matrox cards.... or any other single card that I know of, to be fair. In some cases you would need to still use two video cards to get support for three or more monitors. Be sure to check out the manufacturer's web site for detailed info.

On a slightly related note... Gateway just released the 'breakthrough' 30" LCD that makes these super sized, high resolution monitors much more attractive. It has on screen adjustments as well as the all important single connection for the high resolution (rather than the two previously required)... all at a cost roughly equal to the other 30" monitors that have been out for a while (including the Apple 30" LCD) that don't have these features. Great reviews for image quality as well.

Perry

[Warren]

Oh, if you mean by triple head two monitors and a TV, then, yeah, I'd agree. The only thing I've found to be a little bothersome is that some of the application-specific settings (in the Matrox PowerDesk control applet) for window/monitor placement don't seem to work.

Yeh Dave I am not promoting them, I just have had one working with 3 19" monitors working just fine, I did delete there desktop software after the driver was configured (Bloat) useless, you can go with 2 and TV or 3 monitors. For editing audio it has been fine as far as editing video, which was not mentioned I would say no. Oh and AutoCad was not mentioned either:D

[Dave Labrecque]

Yeh Dave I am not promoting them, I just have had one working with 3 19" monitors working just fine, I did delete there desktop software after the driver was configured (Bloat) useless, you can go with 2 and TV or 3 monitors. For editing audio it has been fine as far as editing video, which was not mentioned I would say no. Oh and AutoCad was not mentioned either:D

Thanks for pointing out the three-monitor capability to me, Warren. I'd forgotten about that. :o

[DominicPerry]

I didn't mention video but that is what I'm interested in. But you've all brought up useful points. I probably do want 2 x monitor + 1 x TV, and I probably do want high res on the 2 x monitors and I also didn't know I could run two cards in the same system. And it turns out I probably want 2 x DVI too, as I've decided that putting the machine in another room and doing long cable runs is cheaper than making the machine super quiet with water cooling and no fans and all that rubbish. And I've also discovered on the Matrox site that they do a 'remote' package which blast your whole keyboard, mouse, usb, firewire, s/pdif + stereo audio and upto 4 monitors and tv signal down a digital wire to a passively cooled box which has the breakouts. Cool, if it works. And designed specially for video workstations. Just the ticket. So I'll research that a bit too. So thanks, all.

Dp,omoc

[Bud Johnson]

And I've also discovered on the Matrox site that they do a 'remote' package which blast your whole keyboard, mouse, usb, firewire, s/pdif + stereo audio and upto 4 monitors and tv signal down a digital wire to a passively cooled box which has the breakouts.
Dp,omoc

Could you give a link? I looked around the site, but didn't find it. This is interesting to me.
Bud Johnson

[Perry]

Could you give a link? I looked around the site, but didn't find it. This is interesting to me.
Bud Johnson

That does sound interesting! Start here and see if you can find what you're looking for... looks like there's even a "up against the wall...." solutions available. :eek: :)

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/corpo/products/home.php

Perry

[Perry]

OK.... it looks to me like with strictly add-in video cards alone we're still confined to 1600 X 1200 resolutions to get multiple monitors..
at least as far as I can figure out. That's the problem I've had with the Matrox cards for multiple monitors but.....

Hmmm... 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution per display* ....looks like the Matrox Extio series.. like the F1400.... WILL actually do what I want to do... but there are still some restrictions to
investigate. It's those little notes that you have to be careful of. :)


http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/cadgis/products/extio/extiof1400.php
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/cadgis/support/drivers/203se/home.php

I have a feeling this might be an expensive deal by the time you get everything needed but... it does look like an interesting
solution. More research definitely in order on this.


Perry

[Bud Johnson]

That does sound interesting! Start here and see if you can find what you're looking for... looks like there's even a "up against the wall...." solutions available. :eek: :)

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/corpo/products/home.php

Perry
Thanks, found it.
Bud

[Carl G.]

Any recommendations for triple head video cards please?

Dominic

Matrox APVe works perfect here.
(I've only used two monitors so far though)

[Carl G.]

Oh, if you mean by triple head two monitors and a TV, then, yeah, I'd agree. The only thing I've found to be a little bothersome is that some of the application-specific settings (in the Matrox PowerDesk control applet) for window/monitor placement don't seem to work.

Dave - only YOU could find the bugs :)

You might check the updates.
The latest one for mine solved some issues and allows different resolutions on monitors in all modes (only could in one mode before).

[Dave Labrecque]

Dave - only YOU could find the bugs :)

You might check the updates.
The latest one for mine solved some issues and allows different resolutions on monitors in all modes (only could in one mode before).

I dunno. I'm pretty gun-shy with P750 driver updates. I've had bad experiences trying different ones till I find one that works right. :(

I suppose I could try it and always "roll back", eh? Thanks for the thought.

[DominicPerry]

The Extio 1400 is £1700 so I'm not sure it makes a lot of financial sense.

I think I can run at least the following minimum distances with just long cables:

USB - 10m (keyboard and mouse)
Firewire - 4.5m for audio interface (100m for FW800 over ethernet)
DVI - for monitors "The maximum length of DVI cables is not included in the specification since it is dependant on bandwidth requirements (the resolution of the image being transmitted). In general, cable lengths from 1-15 feet will work for displays at resolutions of 1920x1200. cable lengths up to 50 feet can be used with displays at resolutions up to 1280x1024". (From wikipedia)
PAL (UK) - for TV - no idea, but boosters cheap and easy to find.
XLR audio cable - line level, at least 10 m
XLR audio cable - mic level, at least 10 m
S/PDIF - more than 6m on co-ax
LTC - for video timecode - found figures of 200m, and 750m
Wordclock - dunno, can't find a spec
ADAT - 10m on optical

Anybody care to correct my figures?

Dominic

[Naturally Digital]

Dom,

FWIW I'm running good quality VGA cables 25', through a KVM switch at 1920x1200. I have only very mild ghosting (completely tolerable for all day mixing) and I think that would disappear if I eliminated the kvm.

I haven't tried DVI at that distance yet because I'll need a new KVM and cabling.

[Cary B. Cornett]

... I've decided that putting the machine in another room and doing long cable runs is cheaper than making the machine super quiet with water cooling and no fans and all that rubbish.
I agonized over this foolishness for a long time before I tackled computer noise. I concluded a few years ago that the multiple long cable runs would be more trouble than they were worth, particularly since I did not want to run really long lightpipe cables with their potential for increased jitter. Over time I have attacked the noise problem 2 different ways.

My first attempt involved building a proper "baffle box" that holds 2 computers. The whole thing is a bit more than 2 feet in each dimension, made of 3/4" plywood. There is an intake vent in the bottom, and a ducted exhaust going out the back at the top. I had to add exhaust fans when temp measurements showed me they were needed. It does quiet things down, though not quite as much as I wanted when the fans are running. For limited periods of time I can leave the fans off if I am going to have an open mic in the room.

My second attempt was to see how quiet a computer I could build without spending a wad of cash to make it quiet. I decided that I did not need any built-in floppy or optical drives, and the only plug-in cards would be a video card and my RME HDSP 9652 (no hardware DSP cards). Keeping the machine as stripped down and simple as possible means lower power consumption and less heat to throw off. I used an ASUS A8N-VM mobo with an Athlon64 3500+ processor. I used the stock processor fan. I found an ATI chipset video card that used a decent heat sink instead of a fan. I bought the cheapest uATX mini-tower case I could find (made by Foxconn, cost $50). I put in a single 160 gig SATA HD. On first power-up, the dominant noise source was the power supply. I spent a whopping $70 for a special quiet power supply.

Result? The quietest computer I have ever had! Not counting the sound card, I spent maybe $600 total on the build. I have this computer behind and to one side of my "desk", and the only way that I can hear it running is if I turn off everything else in the room, including the computers in the baffle box! I have used this machine in a theater for live sound mixing, with the computer on top of a table right behind the last row of the audience (at the mix position) and no one heard it at all during the show (show was not all that loud, either). It isn't quiet enough for me to do Foley work in the same room with it, but for anything else, including vocals in the same room, it is no problem.

So... IMO you CAN build a quiet computer at a very reasonable cost. I bet if you added up the cost of all the cables and other stuff you need to "closet" your machine it would be more than I spent building mine.

[DominicPerry]

I agonized over this foolishness for a long time before I tackled computer noise. I concluded a few years ago that the multiple long cable runs would be more trouble than they were worth, particularly since I did not want to run really long lightpipe cables with their potential for increased jitter.

So... IMO you CAN build a quiet computer at a very reasonable cost. I bet if you added up the cost of all the cables and other stuff you need to "closet" your machine it would be more than I spent building mine.

Very interesting. I really, really hate any noise from my machines, I can even hear the damn video cards squalling away (with no fans, just the noise of the chips). But I hadn't factored in the cost of long cable runs. I was looking at *completely* fanless machines, basically a Zalman TN500AF case, which is £900 on it's own (inc 400W PSU). I'll get some costings and see how it goes. With my rooms getting upto 35-40 degrees C during hot summer months in the UK, a passive cooling box still seems risky.
Incidentally, I didn't think lightpipe cable runs introduced jitter, surely it's just the timing of the pulses of light as they are generated? It seems counter-intuitive to me that long runs would make some light slower than other light:D . I realise you know a lot about this stuff, I'm only joking, can you explain please?

Dominic

[Tim Miskimon]

Okay - since we're talking dual & triple monitors - is it possible to use a widescreen monitor as monitor 1 and a standard 21 inch for monitor 2???
I've been considering a wide screen for my main monitor and using the standard 21's I already have for 2nd & possibly 3rd displays.
I'd like to use a wide screen for editing but I don't want to give up the second monitor.
I could never go back to a single monitor again.

[Perry]

Okay - since we're talking dual & triple monitors - is it possible to use a widescreen monitor as monitor 1 and a standard 21 inch for monitor 2???
I've been considering a wide screen for my main monitor and using the standard 21's I already have for 2nd & possibly 3rd displays.
I'd like to use a wide screen for editing but I don't want to give up the second monitor.
I could never go back to a single monitor again.

Ummm... I don't see why not.. depending on your vid card and software of course. I run 2 wide screens but with different resolutions (they're different sizes). Having a 'standard' monitor for the 2nd one would make no difference; it's just the ability to run at different resolutions that you want. Most video cards will let you run the monitors at different resolutions.. you just have to check the specifics for your card.

In my case the 23 inch wide screen is running at it's native resolution of 1920 X 1600 and the second monitor (19" wide screen) is running at 1440 X 900.

This is with an ATI video card but I've done the same thing with a nVidia card previously.

Perry

[Carl G.]

Okay - since we're talking dual & triple monitors - is it possible to use a widescreen monitor as monitor 1 and a standard 21 inch for monitor 2???
I've been considering a wide screen for my main monitor and using the standard 21's I already have for 2nd & possibly 3rd displays.
I'd like to use a wide screen for editing but I don't want to give up the second monitor.
I could never go back to a single monitor again.

Tim,
I thought the same.
Thought - Did -Then Learned.

When I can get a 24" monitor I like - I'm going back to single.
Why....
TWO large video monitors block my nearfield AUDIO monitors! :)

[Cary B. Cornett]

With my rooms getting upto 35-40 degrees C during hot summer months in the UK, a passive cooling box still seems risky. I do have the "unfair advantage" of being in a basement, which stays cooler even if I didn't have A/C (which I try to avoid using much anyhow because of utility cost). BTW, I forgot to mention that, although the case I bought has a fan in back, I disconnected the fan due to noise. No problems yet...

I didn't think lightpipe cable runs introduced jitter,... can you explain please?

Dominic I'm not entirely sure (never seen a detailed explanation myself), but I think it has to do with the light "bouncing around" a bit in the plastic fiber (apparently GLASS fiber, which is much more expensive and what the telcos use for long fiber runs, has MUCH less trouble, and is much more forgiving over longer runs) rather than just traveling "straight down the middle". I think at some point reflections can interfere, in a way that might be similar to what can happen with an unterminated RF cable.

[Cary B. Cornett]

I'd like to use a wide screen for editing but I don't want to give up the second monitor.
I could never go back to a single monitor again. I ran dual 17" crt's for a long time. Last year I got a single 19" LCD (regular, not "widescreen") and rigged it to "window" a much larger desktop than the screen size. The screen is 1280 x 1024, but the desktop is 2048 x 1536. Any "hidden" stuff is just a mouse move away. I find this works really well for me, and I have never missed the old dual monitor setup.

BTW, I use an ATI Radeon X300 type dual monitor card to get the screen that way, as I found out that the built-in graphics on the mobo would not do it. So, you should try what I did, and your ATI card can do it.

[Bill Park]

I gave up my third monitor when I moved to the newer PC, just because I didn't want to dump another $500 into the machine to get the third monitor capability and I could not transger my AGP three head Matrox 750 to my new motherboard.

If you are used to three, it is not TOO hard to work with two, but I don't recommend it. In many ways it is a PITA, and requires more mousing and window moving.

Bill

[Warren]

On my three monitor system 19" I have set it up so I have the multi track on the left, the mixer in the center and RME Total mix or plugins up on the right.
since I went with this setup the work flow has been very smooth and I would not like to ever return to a single or even two monitor rig. 3 just works for me! :D I will admit that with three the res is lower but not so bad that it would make editing troublesome.

At any rate I hope you get what you need and that it work for you.

Merry Christmas

[Steve L]

Without trying to get commercial or abusing the forum ... I have a Matrox P750 for sale cheap.
E-mail me or call.
S. Lewis
Mountain View Recording
<audiovideoelectr@bellsouth.net>
859-623-4406 days

[Bill Park]

On my three monitor system 19" I have set it up so I have the multi track on the left, the mixer in the center and RME Total mix or plugins up on the right.

Similar for me. Miss monitor number three.

Bill

[DominicPerry]

I'm getting 4 monitors.
And my amps go up to 12.

Dominic

[Dave Labrecque]

I do have the "unfair advantage" of being in a basement, which stays cooler even if I didn't have A/C (which I try to avoid using much anyhow because of utility cost). BTW, I forgot to mention that, although the case I bought has a fan in back, I disconnected the fan due to noise. No problems yet...
I'm not entirely sure (never seen a detailed explanation myself), but I think it has to do with the light "bouncing around" a bit in the plastic fiber (apparently GLASS fiber, which is much more expensive and what the telcos use for long fiber runs, has MUCH less trouble, and is much more forgiving over longer runs) rather than just traveling "straight down the middle". I think at some point reflections can interfere, in a way that might be similar to what can happen with an unterminated RF cable.

FWIW, I'd always understood fiber optics to work not by sending the light "down the middle", but my taking advantage of the fact that the boundary of the medium (glass or plastic) becomes reflective (rather than transparent) at the shallow angle of incidence in a thin cable. I.e., all fiber optics use repeated reflection to transmit their signals the length of the cable run.

Is this not true?

[Ian Alexander]

I'm getting 4 monitors.
And my amps go up to 12.

Dominic
:D

[Cary B. Cornett]

FWIW, I'd always understood fiber optics to work not by sending the light "down the middle", but my taking advantage of the fact that the boundary of the medium (glass or plastic) becomes reflective (rather than transparent) at the shallow angle of incidence in a thin cable. I.e., all fiber optics use repeated reflection to transmit their signals the length of the cable run.

Is this not true? I'd have to look that one up, but my guess is you may be right. Still, for some reason glass is supposed to be much better for long runs than plastic.

[Bill Park]

Many years ago when I was at CBI I helped on the development of some fiber materials destined for fiber products for light enhancement, not data. CBI holds a patent or two in that area. For our purposes we were trying to pump more light through the fiber, using more powerful light sources. Plastic yellows over time, and the crisp edge at the light entrance eventually melts, rounds, and polishes to a mirror finish, bouncing an undesirable percentage of the light back to the source rather than transmitting it down the fiber. Plastic doesn't transmit as well as glass. Either can be forced into too tight of a bend, causing small cracks internally in the fiber which act like mirrors, again reflecting a percentage of the light back the way it came rather than allowing it to travel on to its destination.

Again, this was all for light, not data. Given the low level of cool light going dow a data line and the probable redundancy of the data stream, not all of these concerns may apply.

Bill