Lets talk ultrawides

Time to ditch the dual screens and think about a special treat… but, the perfect solution seems vacant.

49" is clearly too big and this is 5120x1440. The 5120 being over intels 630 max resolution of 4096x2304 (or is that not how it works due to not using all the top resolution). Many 5120x1440 report 630 support, how is this so? I’m reading that 4k isn’t so great in Cubase yet but wouldn’t this still be considerd WQHD not actual 4k, as the extra resolution is due to increased width? No need to bump the scaling 100%

43" would be perfect but these all seem to be 1080. The step up to 1440 from 1080 seems like a good deal if it existed here. To pay big £££ just to remove the inner bezel staying at 1080 doesn’t.

I’m not fussed on going 4k but 1440 is essential, especially for synths like Avenger etc.

Anybody in this world yet? Thoughts? Things to look out for?

Thank you
Mitch

https://www.steinberg.net/forums/search.php?keywords=ultrawide&fid[0]=209

Once I got half way down the page the post was from 2017 so I didn’t reply on those. Some good info there but my thoughts are more related to super ultras 43"- 49".

Old post I know, but I’ve just got a 49" ultrawide. Like you I wanted a 43" but also the 1440p…

Anywho…ask away if you want

4K 43" TVs are about the right balance between size and quality of text. Unfortunately, they seem to be becoming rarer and more expensive, matching 49-50" prices.

4K allows a lot of room to place the various Cubase windows along with open fx ones. It is also fantastic for doing spectral repair in the likes of RX, as there is plenty of room in the vertical frequency range without having to zoom in.

When I had a 55" curved 4K TV, I also had a 23.5" Dell touchscreen on each side on the desk holding mixer windows so I could easily just reach over and move controls.

Problem with the 49" is… it wont fit. The 1080 versions wouldn’t be a step up for me. The 1440 version are perfect in height res. I was annoyed the 38" or 43" didn’t come as a 1440. Seems CRAZY that they’ll do an even wider 49" at the lower height res of a 1440 over the 38" at 1600 and not do the same for the 38". The most annoying thing of all is the 49" are cheaper.


Problem with actual 4k is height and we’re paying to then use oversize windows feature, it too much resolution.

Never too much resolution! :smiley: :sunglasses:

It is easier to rotate one’s head from side-to-side than up-down, but lesser used windows can be placed in the upper part of the screen, so the placement priority by usage is middle lower, outer lower, then upper.

Program windows always have more chrome (caption bar, menus, status bar) in the vertical, which severely limits the amount of vertical allowed for useful content, which is why I don’t like 1080px height screens.

https://www.samsung.com/de/monitors/wqhd-sj550/

big enough for the Project window
mixer is on older 29" ultrawide with 2560x1080

:wink:

There is if that isn’t matched with extra actual size. Objects, text ends up too small and you have to use “windows oversize” My internet/work machine is in the lounge area 4k, and even at 65" it needs 150% oversize, 300% is recommended but I sit on a been bag more or less right in front of it, a table behind me with a sofa behind that. Once you use oversize (which somethings don’t handle right) you’re actually losing the extra space you’ve paid more for.

I agree completely. I wouldn’t mind the 1600 over the 1440 but it was the only reasoning I could find that made the smaller 38" way more expensive than the 49". I’d much prefer to pay the 1440 prices, £1000 is too much.

Link is 34", it’s not wide enough, 42", 38" min. I currently have Dual Screen 26" at 1080, unless making the jump to 1440, I’m not stepping up. I’ve read people have a few issues with mixing resolutions. I suppose that wont matter if keeping one purely for mixer. A 34" would work if I was to stay with the dual, figure out a different set up not side by side. How do you have these in the room?

I’ve found quite a few potential models now but the issue is price, annoying that the wider 49" comes in a lot cheaper, even at 1440. They seem to be pushing the largest model for less profit, perhaps to get the psychology out there for us to want bigger screens, then need to pay more for the next size down, that fits.

Link is 34", it’s not wide enough

it’s a dual screen scenario
a 34" and a 29"
this isn’t too high to cover the direct line to the speakers
but its wide enough for some space
and I don’t use text zooming
only in the browser I have to change the size sometimes

I’ve found quite a few potential models now but the issue is price, annoying that the wider 49" comes in a lot cheaper, even at 1440. They seem to be pushing the largest model for less profit, perhaps to get the psychology out there for us to want bigger screens, then need to pay more for the next size down, that fits.

nothing to do with psychology
the build in panel is cheaper because it is used way more often than the exotic ones with 43"

Just out of curiosity: Those of you using very wide displays beyond 34 inches, what do you do on those screens and how is it set up?

Is it to fit a maximum amount of mixer channels, or is it to fit more of the timeline for editing, or is it to fit other software or panes or whatever?..

I always used it for more timeline, in Cubase and RX, just because it means less zooming in and out. I always found timelines across multiple monitors annoying.

However, I never used many channels, so could always allocate mixers to touchscreens where they are much more useful.

For those with dozens of channels, a wide touchscreen would probably be great, and be sloped up to a vertical timeline monitor. However, the touchscreen would have to be multitouch AND the software handle the multiple touch streams.

Yeah, I understand. For me too it’s useful to get more of the timeline in view.

I will say though that my personal experience is that at some point getting more timeline horizontally is facing diminishing returns so to speak. I just don’t feel like turning sideways more than a certain amount regardless of if it’s mixer channels or timeline. And I also find that my way of working (for “TV” post mostly) essentially puts me in a place where other options are used anyway. So I don’t typically have to move that far up/down the timeline and if I do it’s often so far I’ll have to use markers or timecode to locate anyway.

As for ‘dozens of channels’ in the mixer; I definitely have that but I really don’t feel that I gain that much by going beyond 34". Again, since the first stage of my work is editing and pre-leveling the elements individually there isn’t really a need for me to look at dialog track #5 and then jump down/right to look at stereo effect track #11. Also, I measure levels at the output of a group channel rather than at the individual audio tracks. So all my dialog audio tracks go into a dialog group and from there the signal is sent (a copy of it) to a meter channel. That meter is always up on my secondary 24" screen. The main mix has it’s own meter as well on that same screen.

So during “pre-mix” I can always look over and see the level if I need to and never really have to ‘scroll’ to find what I’m looking for.

During the actual mix it really depends on the content how I’m working, but generally because of deliverables I’ll either balance the elements against each other riding group faders or VCA faders. Since there’s a limited amount of those they all fit within 34" during mix if I desire to see them all. I also use different layouts for different parts of the process, so if I want to double-check routing I have a key command that brings up mixer #4 which contains all output channels which are from where I get my mixes and stems. They all fit as well.

When it comes to touchscreens I just didn’t like the experience the times I tried the Raven (Slate). For mixing it was near useless for me and the thought of waving my arms around for hours was just not appealing. I use a physical touch sensitive motorized fader controller of some sort most of the time so that’s really the main input device for me and has been for decades at this point.

Anyway, interesting to read how others work and feel about it.

My comment was phantom speculation, quite hard to explain… but companies do similar things all the time to influence purchases. Your friend has a huge 49" makes your 26" look like a monitor form the 90’s, best upgrade. Whilst the “way more often” is likely truer, neither of us work for the monitor companies or have any idea of unit sales, profit margins on each size etc, to say what it is or isn’t to do with, with dry certainty. If the 38"/43" was as cheap as the 49" they’d likely sell bucket loads more, but the extra 1600 over the 1400 height res will bump the price. They can pretty much make up any price the like for the models they’re pushing for major “niche” sales.

Remember, it’s not that the model doesn’t exist, it’s that it costs a lot more and has the extra height res not really needed. A cheaper 1440, like the 49" would be perfect, but they didn’t make it, they jumped to the insanely large 49", which is more likely to do with the letter box movie and how small the pixel on the screen, 1440 height, making the 5120 width 49", no one has linked me to that info or reasoning though to enlighten me, but the reasoning is somewhere in the back of my mind.