Any good LCD monitor for audio work ?

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.
42 answers Last reply
More about good monitor audio work
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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.
  7. 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...
    >
    >
  8. 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.
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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."
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Mike Rivers wrote:
    > 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?
    >>
    >> http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/faq.asp
    >
    > Where am I supposed to look among those couple of dozen topics?
    > Is there a simple explanation as to what makes this work?

    Windows 2k and XP handle it natively. There was a description on the
    page of how to do it once you have two monitors hooked to either two
    cards or two outputs of a dual monitor card.


    > is it specific to a program or to a card?

    There are some enhancements from some of the card vendors (made in their
    drivers) but in general it is all the same. Matrox (and I think ATI)
    had special drivers for Win98 and WinNT that would let you run dual-head.


    In general (for Win2k/XP anyway):

    Right-click on the desktop, choose properties, then click the 'settings'
    tab. You should see two rectangles representing the two monitors.
    Select number two and there will be some options to control how the
    desktop is managed across the monitors.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    www.geeks.com is currently selling the Matrox G450 Dual Head
    16MB AGP video card for US$19.99 I just bought two.
    http://www.geeks.com/additem.asp?InvtId=G45MDHA16D-R&Cat=VCD
    IMHO, ideal for video and audio NLE.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <Ro2dncVjRb69QavfRVn-sw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

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

    Understood.

    > 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.

    That's the part I don't know how to do. I suspect that if I had the
    hardware, assuming the computer recognized it, I'd figure it out.

    > 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.

    Well, I'll be darned. I tried that on my laptop and I got this far.
    When I saved the settings, I had a plain blue background on the CRT
    and the real desktop on the laptop's LDC. I couldn't drag anything to
    the CRT, though. The cursor didn't even go there.

    Perhaps this just isn't set up to support two monitors, even though it
    goes through the motions.


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

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1110913138k@trad...
    >
    > Well, I'll be darned. I tried that on my laptop and I got this far.
    > When I saved the settings, I had a plain blue background on the CRT
    > and the real desktop on the laptop's LDC. I couldn't drag anything to
    > the CRT, though. The cursor didn't even go there.

    Are you sure you were trying to move the cursor off of the correct edge of
    the primary display? The way the two screens are arranged in the "Settings"
    window is how they're logically related to each other. If you want the
    second one to be to the right of the first one, arrange them that way in the
    Settings window.

    Hal Laurent
    Baltimore
  29. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <d17jcd$fsd$1@news01.intel.com>, "Richard Crowley"
    <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:

    > www.geeks.com is currently selling the Matrox G450 Dual Head
    > 16MB AGP video card for US$19.99 I just bought two.
    > http://www.geeks.com/additem.asp?InvtId=G45MDHA16D-R&Cat=VCD
    > IMHO, ideal for video and audio NLE.

    I just bought a 64mb one off ebay for $25 with shipping.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <glMZd.8$oc.3022@news.abs.net> laurent@charm.net writes:

    > Are you sure you were trying to move the cursor off of the correct edge of
    > the primary display?

    Sorry, that's more than I think I should be expected to know. <g>

    Maybe I was just trying to do something that doesn't work. I was just
    trying to move the cursor into the other screen. I did try in all
    directions.

    One thing that happened after I thought I had un-attached the second
    monitor (but apparently didn't) was that the cursor disappeared from
    the CRT. I popped up the laptop screen and by golly, saw the cursor
    there. When I used the function key on the laptop to switch between
    the LCD/external video/both, I got the cursor back on the CRT. I
    un-attached the second monitor again (I think) and haven't looked
    back.

    During this brief bit of light with the cursor on the "wrong" screen,
    I could right-click in that screen and get the usual desktop
    right-click menu.

    > window is how they're logically related to each other. If you want the
    > second one to be to the right of the first one, arrange them that way in the
    > Settings window.

    That's the way they are. And when I click on "Identify" I get 1 and 2
    displayed where I expect them. My immediate application (what I really
    wanted to do when I got to thinkihg about this) was to display two
    different photos on the two screens. My JPG viewer program is an old
    (free, and 16-bit) version of LView Pro. What I was hoping was that I
    could open that program for each of the two photos, then drag one to
    the second screen, but that didn't work. As I dragged it in any
    direction (OK, I didn't try down) I never saw it peep on to the second
    screen.

    I'm willing to accept that I was just trying with a backward program.
    But I assume that a reasonable use for two monitors is to have two
    windows open, one on each monitor - like mixer on one, tracks on the
    other, in a DAW program. Maybe I should try it with one. It's not
    really practical to use the way I have it set up though, with the
    laptop computer up on a shelf a foot above the CRT. I can only see it
    if I stand up.

    Just playing around.


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

    "Mike Rivers" wrote ...
    > Maybe I was just trying to do something that doesn't work. I was just
    > trying to move the cursor into the other screen. I did try in all
    > directions.

    Do you have the box checked:
    "Extend my Windows desktop onto this monitor"?

    It seems like a silly question to me, but there it is on the "Display
    Properties" screen. Dunno why/when the answer would ever be
    "no".
  32. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
    news:znr1110913138k@trad
    > In article <Ro2dncVjRb69QavfRVn-sw@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com
    > writes:
    >
    >> You need two monitors and a PC with either two video cards or one
    >> video card that incorporates the function of two video cards.
    >
    > Understood.
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > That's the part I don't know how to do. I suspect that if I had the
    > hardware, assuming the computer recognized it, I'd figure it out.
    >
    >> 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.
    >
    > Well, I'll be darned. I tried that on my laptop and I got this far.
    > When I saved the settings, I had a plain blue background on the CRT
    > and the real desktop on the laptop's LDC.

    I believe that means that you didn't extend the desktop onto the CRT, or
    that your desktop is plain blue.

    If you do things right, you get the same background on both displays,
    wallpaper and all.

    What you don't get on the second display is a start button and a task bar.
    You may or may not have desktop icons on both displays, depending on whether
    you have auto-arrange turned on, how many icons you have, and where you
    dragged them to if auto-arrange is off.

    >I couldn't drag anything to the CRT, though. The cursor didn't even go
    there.

    Another sign that you hadn't extended the desktop to the CRT.

    > Perhaps this just isn't set up to support two monitors, even though it
    > goes through the motions.

    I doubt that because you're close.

    If you do everything right, it works! ;-)
  33. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <DOCdnV8enKSR1KXfRVn-iA@comcast.com> arnyk@hotpop.com writes:

    > I believe that means that you didn't extend the desktop onto the CRT, or
    > that your desktop is plain blue.
    >
    > If you do things right, you get the same background on both displays,
    > wallpaper and all.

    My desktop is plain blue. I did have the "extend the Windows desktop"
    box clicked, but I think that the problem was that I didn't understand
    the side-to-side orientation (which probably makes very good sense
    with two monitors side by side. Since the laptop is on the shelf above
    the monitor, I was trying to drag a window upward (through the top of
    the CRT) and looking for it to appear coming up from the bottom of the
    LCD screen. I think that when I did see a cursor on the top (right)
    screen it didn't dawn on me that I had gone off the CRT screen to the
    right.

    I just tried it again, and now I have two pictures, one on each
    screen. Then, thinking about the relative orientation of the displays that
    Arny mentioned, I discovered that (on the Display Settings screen) I
    could indeed drag Monitor 2 up above Monitor 1, and then it worked
    the way I expected it to. Too bad the job that I wanted that for is already
    done, but at least I learned how to do something I hadn't done before.

    Now if only I can remember it if I ever actually need it.

    Thanks, Arny and Richard.


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

    Lou Gimenez wrote:
    > Recently I picked up a Samsung 213 21" LCD which I love. Logic is a screen
    > hog, this makes life easier.

    Darn you people! Darn you to heck!

    You had to go and mention LCDs, and then I checked pricescan.com for
    the latest Samsung 213T prices, and it turns out there is now a $100
    rebate out on them for the rest of the month. And the price has
    dropped to under $800 at lots of online stores.

    If it weren't for this discussion, I wouldn't have known that, and
    I'd've been able to hold out a while longer, I'm sure. But knowing
    it was suddenly about $140 cheaper than last time I checked, I just
    couldn't stop myself. It was only $759 + $24 shipping - $100 rebate,
    and it arrives tomorrow. (Apparently I live only about 200 miles
    away from buy.com's distribution center, so the cheapest shipping
    option still gets here the next day!)

    The only down side (apart from having spent money) is that the $100
    rebate is supposed to take not the usual 4-6 weeks but a whopping
    10-12 weeks. WTF? Are they processing them at the corporate
    headquarters in Korea and shipping them back over by boat or something?
    Oh well, as long as I do get the money eventually, I guess I can't
    complain.

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

    In article <Bq1_d.2484$nW3.1188@tornado.texas.rr.com>, Logan Shaw
    <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

    > The only down side (apart from having spent money) is that the $100
    > rebate is supposed to take not the usual 4-6 weeks but a whopping
    > 10-12 weeks. WTF?

    They're hoping you forget when they "forget" to send it to you.

    --
    Jedd Haas - Artist
    http://www.gallerytungsten.com
    http://www.epsno.com
  36. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:41:33 -0600, jnh@epsno.com (Jedd Haas) wrote:

    >In article <Bq1_d.2484$nW3.1188@tornado.texas.rr.com>, Logan Shaw
    ><lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    >> The only down side (apart from having spent money) is that the $100
    >> rebate is supposed to take not the usual 4-6 weeks but a whopping
    >> 10-12 weeks. WTF?
    >
    >They're hoping you forget when they "forget" to send it to you.

    And their accountants like them to keep that money for a full
    financial quarter.

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

    I got mine for about 800 w shipping
    --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: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:20:33 GMT
    > Subject: Re: Any good LCD monitor for audio work ?
    >
    > Lou Gimenez wrote:
    >> Recently I picked up a Samsung 213 21" LCD which I love. Logic is a screen
    >> hog, this makes life easier.
    >
    > Darn you people! Darn you to heck!
    >
    > You had to go and mention LCDs, and then I checked pricescan.com for
    > the latest Samsung 213T prices, and it turns out there is now a $100
    > rebate out on them for the rest of the month. And the price has
    > dropped to under $800 at lots of online stores.
    >
    > If it weren't for this discussion, I wouldn't have known that, and
    > I'd've been able to hold out a while longer, I'm sure. But knowing
    > it was suddenly about $140 cheaper than last time I checked, I just
    > couldn't stop myself. It was only $759 + $24 shipping - $100 rebate,
    > and it arrives tomorrow. (Apparently I live only about 200 miles
    > away from buy.com's distribution center, so the cheapest shipping
    > option still gets here the next day!)
    >
    > The only down side (apart from having spent money) is that the $100
    > rebate is supposed to take not the usual 4-6 weeks but a whopping
    > 10-12 weeks. WTF? Are they processing them at the corporate
    > headquarters in Korea and shipping them back over by boat or something?
    > Oh well, as long as I do get the money eventually, I guess I can't
    > complain.
    >
    > - Logan
  38. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    In article <Bq1_d.2484$nW3.1188@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

    > The only down side (apart from having spent money) is that the $100
    > rebate is supposed to take not the usual 4-6 weeks but a whopping
    > 10-12 weeks. WTF?

    I just read a "consumer" article about rebates last week. There have
    been a number of companies who just never send rebates, hoping that
    you'll forget about them. I've been lucky, but I know others who
    haven't.

    But still, $729 is a lot of money to spend on a monitor. Glad my
    console doesn't need one - and it's bigger than your monitor. <g>


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

    is there a problem with how fast a lcd monitorcan display to the screen
    for sync work?

    this is a new lcd monitor that is being released,
    "ViewSonic intros faster LCD monitors"

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

    Mike Rivers wrote:
    > I just read a "consumer" article about rebates last week. There have
    > been a number of companies who just never send rebates, hoping that
    > you'll forget about them. I've been lucky, but I know others who
    > haven't.

    I'm thinking Samsung is a big enough company that they probably
    won't try to cheat me in that department. Plus if they do, they
    have some kind of facility here in Austin, so worse comes to worse
    I can go in person and demand my money.

    > But still, $729 is a lot of money to spend on a monitor. Glad my
    > console doesn't need one - and it's bigger than your monitor. <g>

    If you spend most of your working hours in front of it, $700-ish
    is actually not a lot at all to spend on a monitor. It's a small
    price to pay for increased productivity and for preserving your
    eyesight.

    Plus, I spent about that much on the last monitor I bought new,
    which was a 17" CRT monitor with a 15.9" viewable area. That was
    about 7 years ago, so if I buy a new $700 monitor every 7 years,
    then I'm only spending $100 year, which is totally worth it
    considering how much one-on-one time me and the computer have.

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

    "Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:XCE_d.1793$ot.1001@tornado.texas.rr.com...
    > Mike Rivers wrote:
    >> I just read a "consumer" article about rebates last week. There have
    >> been a number of companies who just never send rebates, hoping that
    >> you'll forget about them. I've been lucky, but I know others who
    >> haven't.
    >
    > I'm thinking Samsung is a big enough company that they probably
    > won't try to cheat me in that department. Plus if they do, they
    > have some kind of facility here in Austin, so worse comes to worse
    > I can go in person and demand my money.
    >
    >> But still, $729 is a lot of money to spend on a monitor. Glad my
    >> console doesn't need one - and it's bigger than your monitor. <g>
    >
    > If you spend most of your working hours in front of it, $700-ish
    > is actually not a lot at all to spend on a monitor. It's a small
    > price to pay for increased productivity and for preserving your
    > eyesight.
    >
    > Plus, I spent about that much on the last monitor I bought new,
    > which was a 17" CRT monitor with a 15.9" viewable area. That was
    > about 7 years ago, so if I buy a new $700 monitor every 7 years,
    > then I'm only spending $100 year, which is totally worth it
    > considering how much one-on-one time me and the computer have.
    >
    > - Logan

    Me, too. Same for the $800 chair. Best equipment money I spent last year.

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

    In article <XCE_d.1793$ot.1001@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

    > Mike Rivers wrote:
    > > I just read a "consumer" article about rebates last week. There have
    > > been a number of companies who just never send rebates

    > I'm thinking Samsung is a big enough company that they probably
    > won't try to cheat me in that department. Plus if they do, they
    > have some kind of facility here in Austin, so worse comes to worse
    > I can go in person and demand my money.

    Rebates are almost always handled by a fulfillment company. You won't
    get your money if you go to Samsung in Austin. You probably have to go
    to Eden Prairie, Minnesota, where most of these things seem to come
    from.

    I don't think they'll cheat you either, but it'll take every bit as
    long as they say it will. I just got a $10 rebate check yesterday for
    a USB memory stick that I bought in January. I forgot about that one.
    Good lunch! Yum!

    > Plus, I spent about that much on the last monitor I bought new,
    > which was a 17" CRT monitor with a 15.9" viewable area. That was
    > about 7 years ago

    The last monitor I bought (for my studio computer) was a 19" CRT at
    the used computer store. I think I paid $129 for it about two years
    ago and it was essentially new. I had to leave the carton there
    because it wouldn't fit in my car. I agree that having a monitor that
    makes you comfortable is a good thing though. If that's what it takes,
    then that's what you should do. I spend most of my day behind
    computers and I'm still happy with 17" CRTs (but web page text on the
    one that runs at 1280x1024 pixels is getting mighty small).


    --
    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
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio LCD Monitor