Bigger monitors for DAW

[jmh]

I've never tried saw with a very large monitor and assume the custom size can accommodate any display. I see there are some 3840x2160p displays around $300 and am curious what experiences are with these bigger screens. Does high resolution impact saw audio performance - or does the graphics processor do most of the work for Studio's display?

Also, how big is too big? I assume at some point the monitor will interfere with the sound.

[mr_es335]

jmh,

You stated, "Also, how big is too big? I assume at some point the monitor will interfere with the sound."

A couple of take-a-ways here:

#1: Proximity
Proximity is the key here!! Proximity is entirely dependent on two factors, a) What is the physical condition of the vision of the intended audience? and b) Where the intended audience is seated in relation to the physical display?

The "Wow" and the "Unghhh" Factor
Many years ago, when I my wife and I were seeking out a new "TV", the salesperson has us stand approximately five feet away from a given display - call this Display A.
We were then told to close our eyes and then on "cue" to open them.
The salesperson then had us stand approximately five feet away from another given display - Display B.
This process was repeated for a total of four times - one for each of the available displays [A to D]
We then repeated this entire process two more times - this time however, we were told to be aware of what they referred to as "Wow" and "Unghhh" - with ""Wow"=the eyes "widened", and "Unghhh"=eyes "squinting".
We we told that both of these situations are to be avoided...as either is placing undue strain on the eyes! Great observation!!

The simple principle to be learnt from all of this is, "The closer you are to an object, the more the eyes tend to widen in order to 'see' what is being observed at that time and, the further away you are from to an object, the more the eyes tend to squint in order to observe what is being "seen" at that time." In the final analysis, we opted for a 49" display - from a selection of 40", 55" and 65" displays observed from a distance of five feet.

Thus, if you happened to be seated further away from the display, you might then consider a larger display, and so on. I find that a 24" display from a distance of 24" a workable solution for me, employing two 24" displays.

#2: The GPU
Regarding monitor size and sound output, such is all entirely dependent on 1) the GPU [graphics processing unit], 2) how that GPU is "built", and 3) what type of port is being employed [VGA, HDMI, DP].
* For my present needs, the on-board GPU [Intel] employing HDMI is just fine.
* In principle, the size of the display has nothing at all to do with sound output/quality! Go to NAMM and observe the size of the displays that are being employed there!

In discussing similar matters with someone whom I respect as being very knowledgeable in the "hardware-side of things", he noted that GPU-intensive application are generally reserved for 1) Gaming, 2) 3D Modeling, and, to my surprise, 3) "curved" displays!

In summary, my suggestion to you is to obtain a display that meets your current physical and proximity requirements!

Hope this helps?

[UpTilDawn]

... Also, how big is too big? I assume at some point the monitor will interfere with the sound.

I took special note recently of an important observation made in a video by a pro audio/video operator, who was in the midst of upgrading the control room. Originally mounting a new, larger display on the wall behind the desk and between the monitors (I don't recall if this concerned both embedded and stand mounted monitor speakers), they ultimately went back to using a desktop display for the daw because of problems with the room sound at the listening position caused by reflections off of the large, wall-mounted display. This might be something worth considering.

[mr_es335]

UpTilDawn,

"...they ultimately went back to using a desktop display for the daw because of problems with the room sound at the listening position caused by reflections off of the large, wall-mounted display..."

In the movie the "Summer of '42", there is a saying that I employ whenever I am considering a decision of some significance, "Life is made up of small comings and goings. And for everything we take with us, there is something that we leave behind."

This should lead to the asking of relevant questions, for example, "If I take with me a larger display, what are the somethings [that is, the potential ramifications], of the employment of that larger display which may lead to that which I may have to then leave behind..."...and so, on.

[John Ludlow]

I've never tried saw with a very large monitor and assume the custom size can accommodate any display. I see there are some 3840x2160p displays around $300 and am curious what experiences are with these bigger screens. Does high resolution impact saw audio performance - or does the graphics processor do most of the work for Studio's display?

Also, how big is too big? I assume at some point the monitor will interfere with the sound.

I used to use two monitors, side-by-side. When I re-did the studio, I bought a much larger one, with the intention of buying another one If I liked it. But I had the same trouble that UpTillDawn noted: I could 'see' it in my display of pink on a frequency analyzer. In my case, I managed to work around the problem with placement of speakers relative to it, and sound absorbers - plus the use of software to compensate. But I did not buy that second monitor.

But, on the other hand, the two monitors I was using before, while not quite as large in total, also reflected sound - and I just didn't know it then. I'm thinking that the ideal environment might be augmented reality goggles. That way you you could have access to a huge screen - or even several of them - have practically zero impact on reflected sound, and still be able to see your hands operating the keyboard and mouse and any person in the room. Of course... they would see nothing. Plus, maybe AR would use CPU/generate interrupts.

The bottom line is: Yes, in a conventional setup, the GPU does most of the work. Yes, any flat surface reflects sound and the larger it is and/or closer to the listening position - the more troublesome to deal with - potentially becoming more trouble than it's worth. But at the same time, you do need to be able to see what you're doing and too small a screen makes that difficult. Somewhere in between is still useful while also being workable.

I became a big believer in testing with pink and frequency analyzers because you can see the result in realtime as you move things around. You could experiment with test surfaces roughly the size of the monitors you're considering while blasting pink into the room (from one speaker only...) and seeing the result on your old small screen from a reference mic in the listening position. Ideally, the faux monitor would be glass. But I'll bet that plywood or fiber board, the right size, would be close enough for a test. Then, if it's too much trouble to compensate for - try the same thing with a smaller test surface. Repeat until you feel confident before you buy. Obviously, you'll want to get the room fixed close to flat at the listening position with your old monitor before you start experimenting so that any deviation you see from it must be the new surface. The result won't be perfect because it's plywood, and your body reflects sound too as you're holding it. But it might give you enough data to make a good purchase decision.

If you're wondering: yes, it's very time consuming to get a good mixing environment at your listening position - or, at least it was for me. The more particular you become - the more time it will likely take. Still though, you're already going to a lot of trouble. And, if you ultimately do spend the time and trouble, and are successful, you will hear things that you never heard before in your mixes. It's like magic.

[mr_es335]

Good day,

Have a peep at this? [Link]

[John Ludlow]

Good day,

Have a peep at this? [Link]

Well... it's gorgeous. I don't know how he could have managed to make it flat in the region of that chair though. Also, some of his studio monitors are obstructed by other things on the way to his listening position. He's making movie sound tracks. He'd need unobstructed speakers behind him as well. Ones that weren't partially blocked by plush couches, extra video monitors, chair backs, a drafting table, and the vibrating strings of an open baby grand. Maybe he creates here and mixes somewhere else? You can't argue with his work though.

https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2013/02/05/inside-hans-zimmers-studio/

That said, I'm told that some engineers know the flaws at their mixing position well enough that they can compensate directly for them on the fly. I guess that could be it. I know I couldn't do that - but I spent a career as a database programmer, not a recording engineer. I need all the help I can get. Maybe an actual engineer should weigh in.

[jmh]

Somewhere in between is still useful while also being workable.

I became a big believer in testing with pink and frequency analyzers because you can see the result in realtime as you move things around. You could experiment with test surfaces roughly the size of the monitors you're considering while blasting pink into the room (from one speaker only...) and seeing the result on your old small screen from a reference mic in the listening position. Ideally, the faux monitor would be glass. But I'll bet that plywood or fiber board, the right size, would be close enough for a test. Then, if it's too much trouble to compensate for - try the same thing with a smaller test surface. Repeat until you feel confident before you buy. Obviously, you'll want to get the room fixed close to flat at the listening position with your old monitor before you start experimenting so that any deviation you see from it must be the new surface. The result won't be perfect because it's plywood, and your body reflects sound too as you're holding it. But it might give you enough data to make a good purchase decision.

If you're wondering: yes, it's very time consuming to get a good mixing environment at your listening position - or, at least it was for me. The more particular you become - the more time it will likely take. Still though, you're already going to a lot of trouble. And, if you ultimately do spend the time and trouble, and are successful, you will hear things that you never heard before in your mixes. It's like magic.

I'm moving my mix space into another room (at least temporarily) to see if that is promising - hopefully magic. It has had a stalled construction project in it - but the need to get a good sound has been pushing it ahead (which is a bit of magic in itself). The display I've been using is 1080p resolution 27". It is actually luxurious compared to what we had in the old days so I could stay on that. I made the mistake of strolling through besetbuy the other day. Could monitor envy be setting in?

The desk I'm currently working on is built against a wall and I want to build or convert what I have to a free standing desk so it can be moved to a best location.

[jmh]

Have a peep at this? [Link]

He is certainly surrounded. Candles are a nice touch too...

[Pedro V]

I could help you, but these topics seem complicated to me because of my English.

With software such as SatLive, a 2-channel sound card and a microphone, you could see the differences between the pure signal and that of the speakers at the listening point and so on.

The graph of coherence, frequency response, impulse and phase...

I think the creator of SATlive is a user of the forum, he could maybe give you a hand.

For acoustic topics ask Bill Fitzmaurice on his forum: https://billfitzmaurice.info/forum/

He's the best at his stuff, like Bob.