Is 2K (2560x1440) the new industry standard?

hi guys!

im looking for a new monitor for traveling, and there is something ive been wondering…
I think i dont even need 4K…

For a software design and best user experience perspective, is 1440p (2K) the new standard?

I have a 32" 4K for my desk, en 52" for the big studio, but i have to scale it to 2K otherwise everything is just too small. Its fun in the beginning to have so much space, but in the end its just a hassle and its better to be on 2K.

Also, on Windows, everybody i know seems to scale to 150% for a kind of optimal view.
On Mac with 4K external mornitor, i have to choose 2550x1440 with SwitchResX scaling…rest is not as sharp. And either too big or too small.
To even see Cubase in full resolution on the laptop i really need (light) glasses because everything get super tiny. So i was thinking of buying a 2K for traveling.

I dont own a 2K screen, can somebody tell me if Cubase looks the same (or better) on 2K as 4K scaled on mac? Distance to monitor is about 50cm (i have a normal size 160x80 desk)

Does 4K even matter??? I feel like i have been misled by marketing, as usual LOL

Not for Cubase, in my view.

1 Like

I can only talk as a Windows user and I don’t know if it’s new industry standard but, when I see all the problems related to display scaling with 4k monitors, I’m more convinced than ever that I made the right choice with a 32" 2560x1440 (scaling 100%).

It’s the perfect conpromise between rather large displayed area and image sharpness, this, without having to tweak both the OS and applications used with the hassles/misbehaviors often seen when doing so. And I’m not talking just about Cubase…


yes correct,

this is what i thought

Depends, Cubase and it’s lower zones are ok but not on the level of other daws like ableton/bitwig which are more laptop/small screen friendly. Cubase is still old school windows based and its more designed like that(which I personally prefer) the other important thing is scaling which cubase cannot be proud of and probably will pass many years till its get properly. So I advise don’t think about 4k on anything bellow 43"

2K is surely good, I have 34 ultrawide (3440x1440) and its ok, I am not far away from it but some things are tiny and its a inch to go on scaling :smiley:
I am fine with horizontal res, but often I need that vertical space (more than 1440) where on 4k you don’t have any struggle. But using Cubase’s workspaces make that way less annoying.

Idk what 52" 4k you have but working in 4k and have optimal distance from screen is way enjoyable than on 2k. Especially if you have busy projects with many channels.

Here is nice topic on the 4k subject:

This is going to be my choice too (soon!), to replace a pair of FHDs (1920x1080).

Yep, I’m on 32" 2560x1440, plus a smaller screen, mainly for sheet music, 1200x1920 (set up vertically).



I use a 43" 4k TV as monitor and I love it! it´s the perfect size for Cubase for me.

Do you sit around 30" (or 75cm) from the screen?

80-90 cm

so a bit farther back than I, which makes sense since the screen is so wide.

I worked with a 55" 4k screen at 100% and at 4 feet (or 122cm) from the screen it felt reasonable.


4K here. (Well more precisely UHDTV which is 3840x2160 as opposed to DCI 4K 4096x2160).

55” at 100% scaling.

Anyway, I would not look back. There are so many advantages to using a single 4K screen, (for me).

Because I need to be fairly close to the screen (space restriction, not eyesight!), I wish I could find a 27" or 28" 2560x1440, but they all seem to be at least 31.5", and even those are getting hard to find.

You may want to ‘simulate’ a 2k screen by changing the resolution to 2560 x 1440.
On Windows, the recommended scaling for 4K (32 Inch - 3840 x 2160) is 150%
When I change the resolution of my 4K screen to 2560 x 1440, the recommended scaling is 100%.
As a consequence, both settings produce the same screen real estate and Cubase looks identical.
So, if I would need a lot of screen real estate, I’d set the 4K monitor to 100% scaling. But the result is an almost unreadable small interface layout. To compensate for this, I’d need a large (50 Inch maybe) screen, 4K set at 100% scaling. But I think that would be uncomfortable large.

It looks like it doesn’t …

What scaling is it set to?

3840x2160 100% scaling

You could have found ‘the sweet spot’ with that 43" 4K setup.

I don´t deny it´s big… in a 32" I couldn´t read a thing in 4k but in 43" using 3 row tracks I can see 30 tracks on screen or a full Mixconsole with more than 40 tracks (using 2 row tracks you can see many more). Or an excellent combined view like this:

That´s why we request a full Mixconsole in lower zone, that would be perfect.

I get it. Nice indeed,
I see a small advantage in using 2 screens side by side: I put the mixer on the second screen.
I use two 32 Inch 4K monitors and an auxiliary HD 22 Inch screen on top. The latter to cater for not-resizable NI old products.

1 Like

I use 3 monitors on the same graphics card:

  • HD 1920 x 1080, 23”
  • 2K 2560 x 1440, 28”
  • 4K 3840 x 2160, 40”

As a matter of fact, the pixel density is about identical for the 3 monitors, and their bottom pixel lines are physically arranged on the same horizontal line. All screens are used at 100%, and are at a distance of about 70 cm, on a hypothetical circle segment.

The 4K is my preferred screen for Cubase and Dorico. I definitely would never want to miss it.
The other screens are for Steinberg Forums and help sites, explorer windows, and Outlook.

1 Like