What's new

Replaced Dell U2412M displays [picture p3 w Samsung Odyssey G9]

Check out the first on this list also, its not as wide as the Samsumg Neo thing...but there are some interesting advantages about it, except I don't like the poor contrast...but I like the form factor a lot.

 
Last edited:
@ JohnG, wish you the very best. Yeah, I also got tired of the two screen setup and now use the one larger screen, I hardly bother with the other smaller display, I might move that to the kitchen.
 
@JohnG - one more that just came via email this morning, appears to be an Adorama exclusive at the moment. The ability to change the arrangement of the displays independently may or may not be useful to you, but it would give you the same number of pixels (5120x1440) as the curved displays you're looking at, though with 27" displays instead of ~24" equivalent with the curved models (and comes in at $799, so a lot cheaper).

I can certainly understand the attraction of the curved displays in your position, but I'd be wary of that new Samsung, just because you're going to pay an awful lot for features that you're really not looking for, and likely won't use. That's really a VERY high end gaming display (complete with the colored lighting coming out the back).
 
I confused this thread with another one and posted some related comments on that other thread...but let me try to respond more directly.

First... Regarding the "gaming" monitor. One thing to keep in mind is that gaming monitors are heavily designed for very fast refresh rates rather then actual sharpness and colors. that isn't to say necessarily that they don't have superb colors and sharpness, you have to read the reviews to find out, but generally, their emphasis will be on fast refresh rates. And you'll likely be paying a premium for that as well.

Business class monitors are really the ideal for us. I would say that perhaps even monitors designed primarily for photography or video work could be good also, but anyway you basically have to read the reviews of every single monitor to find out about all that, but I personally like business class displays myself..and the higher end of the range where they could be pretty good for photography work or video work, but a truly discerning photographer might hymn and haw and say there are better displays with truer colors, etc.. ok fine...but we really don't need that either. For what we do, what we want more than anything are very crisp and clear lines and fonts. And I personally like excellent colors and excellent black levels and contrast, because that ends up easier on the eyes when properly setup. That's just me.

A gaming display may or may not have the absolute crisp lines and fonts (read the reviews), but generally their emphasis will be on frame rate, which is not an issue for us in DAW work, and not even for watching videos at 30fps.




HiDPI is hard to explain, I would have to write a long post to explain it. Google for more info about that. its built into both Windows and MacOS. Apple made use of this tech ever since it started coming out with its Retina displays. suffice it to say that it makes everything smoother and nicer. It provides a lot of options to use different scaled resolutions with much less jaggies then if you were just simply scaling the resolution without HiDPI. With a 32" 4k monitor (or 5k or whatever) you definitely want to find out how to use HiDPI..trust me you will love it.

I highly recommend a software product called SwitchResX for setting up multiple HiDPI resolutions that you can easily switch between on the fly depending on your task.

Note however that the Ultra-wide screens, which are often labeled as 4k or 5k, they do not have enough pixel density to use HiDPI. So if you get an ultra wide like the 49" you are considering, then you will not be using HiDPI. The key to using HiDPI is when you get a monitor that has a PPI spec higher than about 120 ppi, then its a candidate for using HiDPI and without HiDPI, that monitor's fonts would also simply look too small.

This calculator may be helpful: https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/technology/ppi-calculator.php

The 32" 4k monitors at 3480x2160 have a PPI roughly around 130 ppi, which generally if you run it at its native unscaled resolution, the fonts will all be just too darn small. You can scale it without HiDPI, but there will be unsatisfactory jaggies. if you use HiDPI to scale it to a lower display resolultion, then all the lines, fonts and curves will be intelligently filled in so that you won't see jaggies. that's mainly why Retina displays look so darn good. They have a very high hardware PPI, even higher then 130 ppi actually. But the HiDPI tech basically scales things to a high density monitor much better...so you can scale that monitor down to something like 3008x1692 and it will have fonts that are big enough to read quite well without nearly as much jaggies as you'd get by scaling it down without HiDPI.

The old Apple 30" Cinema Display had a PPI density of around 100 ppi. if you generally liked the size of fonts on that monitor, then that would be the native hardware pixel density that would get it. Most likely the 49" ultra wide you are talking about has a pixel density close to that... The Dell you mentioned, which is a very good one by the way, has a 5120x1440 with ppi = 108. I personally feel that is still in the range of decent sized fonts. 110 ppi is about as high as I can go before starting to squint too much. But anyway, the point is, that monitor does not have a dense enough pixel density to even use HiDPI at all. You would need something more like 120 or 130+ of pixel density before you can realistically use HiDPI tech to scale things down in a nice way. But...there is not going to be any need to scale down the Dell 49, it already has a good font size in general.

The downside of that, is that you won't really have the option of scaling it up or down on the fly using HiDPI, like you would be able to do with a 32" 4k or 5k display. with those, you can use HiDPI and choose form a dozen different resolutions depending on your task at the moment.

I personally will probably have an ultra-wide eventually..I like the concept, but I would mount it lower and angled back so that I almost look down on it..and can look over the top of it at a bigger monitor on the back well. Don't forget audio monitor placement also where will they go with an ultra wide?

But we will not have those big ultra-wides with HiDPI capabilities really until some more years go by, current hardware is just not really there yet. We will need 6k or even 8k monitors with appropriate GPU's, etc.. and that is somewhat possible for big bucks, now, but hardly worth it for what we do right now. All that would require more CPU use too, so its a diminishing return after a point; It may be a while before its common place to have that much graphics power in a desktop..I personally think 5k will be it for a while... which means...large ultra wides will simply not be able to use HiDPI anytime soon.





When I was looking into this a year ago, I liked the Dell a lot. There is another 49" ultra wide I seem to recall which also had high reviews, but I don't remember the details now. each year there is new stuff, so you will have to let us know what you end up with.

I think its a highly personal decision about whether to use a single monitor or dual main monitors or an ultra-wide, etc. I personally don't like looking at a screen off center. I want my primary monitor directly in front of me so my neck is neutral and not turned to the side most of the time. That's my personal choice. When you go to bigger dual monitors, you'll have to worry about your audio monitor placement and more side to side turning...and maybe that is the case with ultra-wide too. I tend to think 1440 is also not quite enough vertical space, as someone else already said. I personally am using 32" 4k with HiDPI scaling options...and most of the time its running at 3008x1692 HiDPI mode...which has an effect ppi of 108 ppi (exactly same font size as the 49" ultra wide), but note that it has more vertical space...and I still have the option to rescale the display to various different HiDPI resolutions. I think I probably still prefer this...

The only thing is that if I had an ultra wide, I feel like I could mount it lower and angled back and look over the top of it at a monitor on the back wall easier...so I am thinking about that setup in the future maybe. But I also really like the HiDPI options of having a dozen different nice looking resolutions to choose on the fly.
Great, informative post - thanks! One note, though - if you're running on a Mac in a Retina/HiDPI mode, you should either halve the actual resolution of the panel, or use the "looks like" resolution from the Displays preferences to do your calculation.

Since my 4k 27" BenQ is emulating 5120x2880, my effective DPI is ~217, or "looks like" 108.5 (so right on the mark for your calculations). This isn't surprising, since Apple has historically kept the DPI of its displays pretty consistent (higher on laptops because of the closer viewing distance, though), and the 27" iMac has had either 2560x1440 (pre-Retina) or 5120x2880 (5k), and I'm emulating the latter on a lower-resolution panel. This is why I don't run SwitchResX or similar: my display is already running at it's "ideal" emulated resolution.

This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.
 
I can’t actually find the Dell in stock, so I think I may be down to choosing between these two:

Samsung Odyssey G9 and its replacement…
….Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, which costs quite a bit more.

It’s really hard to judge, without using both, whether the new version, the Neo, offers a meaningful benefit to composers, although its contrast (“much better local dimming” in the review) is noticeably better, at least in the comparison on rtings.com . This apparently is down to the Neo using a different technology (mini-LED) versus the QLED

Both get very good reviews on rtings.com; the second one has better contrast. From rtings:

”The Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 replaces the Samsung Odyssey G9 and upgrades in a few ways. The major difference is that the Neo G9 has Mini LED backlighting, so it gets brighter and has much better local dimming. It also has HDMI 2.1 inputs, while the G9 has HDMI 2.0, so you can achieve a higher refresh rate over HDMI on the Neo G9. The G9 has slightly better response times, but it's not really a noticeable difference.”

Here’s another comparison:
 
I can’t actually find the Dell in stock, so I think I may be down to choosing between these two:

Samsung Odyssey G9 and its replacement…
….Samsung Odyssey Neo G9, which costs quite a bit more.

It’s really hard to judge, without using both, whether the new version, the Neo, offers a meaningful benefit to composers, although its contrast (“much better local dimming” in the review) is noticeably better, at least in the comparison on rtings.com . This apparently is down to the Neo using a different technology (mini-LED) versus the QLED

Both get very good reviews on rtings.com; the second one has better contrast. From rtings:

”The Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 replaces the Samsung Odyssey G9 and upgrades in a few ways. The major difference is that the Neo G9 has Mini LED backlighting, so it gets brighter and has much better local dimming. It also has HDMI 2.1 inputs, while the G9 has HDMI 2.0, so you can achieve a higher refresh rate over HDMI on the Neo G9. The G9 has slightly better response times, but it's not really a noticeable difference.”

Here’s another comparison:
For a composer, I don't see Mini LED being worth the extra ~$1k. It's the kind of thing that has benefits for media playback and gaming, but wouldn't be noticeable in a DAW or other desktop software.

Basically, instead of the entire display being lit by a uniform LED backlight, which creates "black" by blocking off the light as much as possible, Mini LED divides the screen into multiple zones (I think it's around 2000 on the Samsung Neo) and can then light up each zone as needed - a black zone would get no light, white zones would light fully, and colors/brightness levels in between could be handled in a much more granular way. This still can't match OLED, which lights up each pixel individually (so over 8 million "zones" on a 4k display), but is even more expensive.

In your DAW, you're just not going to have zones with that much difference in brightness.
 
I use my Dell 43” in the middle, a 32” to the right for mixer and so, and a smaller to the left rotated to fit a scorepage. I also uses 3 desktops and always have my DAW on desktop 1.
I think its by far the best setup I’ve had ever.
 
Great, informative post - thanks! One note, though - if you're running on a Mac in a Retina/HiDPI mode, you should either halve the actual resolution of the panel, or use the "looks like" resolution from the Displays preferences to do your calculation.

Since my 4k 27" BenQ is emulating 5120x2880, my effective DPI is ~217, or "looks like" 108.5 (so right on the mark for your calculations). This isn't surprising, since Apple has historically kept the DPI of its displays pretty consistent (higher on laptops because of the closer viewing distance, though), and the 27" iMac has had either 2560x1440 (pre-Retina) or 5120x2880 (5k), and I'm emulating the latter on a lower-resolution panel. This is why I don't run SwitchResX or similar: my display is already running at it's "ideal" emulated resolution.

This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.
Well macos hides the details, but with switchresX you have more control to get exactly what you want. As you are pointing out, Apples default resolution is half of the actual hardware resolution. That is definitely going to get you the beautiful appearance you see on apple retina displays. let's call that 200% scaling for parity with the MS Windows approach to HiDPI. However the system preferences also provide a way to use higher virtual resolutions, which they don't tell you exactly what they are, but they are basically something like 150%, and few other possibilities.

If you hold down the option key while selected scaled resolution, you can usually pick from a list of predefined HiDPI resolutions, even more then what is available from the normal friendly icon oriented list. With SwitchResX you can add virtually any HiDPI resolution you want. In my experience, it doesn't look quite as nice as full 200% HiDPI scaling.. But on my 32" 4k monitor I find it quite unsatisfying to use only 1920x1080 hiDPI resolution. Meanwhile using 150% scaling is still very very good and provides 2560x1440 which is much more usable. But I also feel that there are a variety of resolutions between 2560x1440 and 3200x1800 which are all pretty darn good. No they are not as good as Apple's lovely retina. You can use a MBP or iMac with a smaller display and 200% scaling and its truly beautiful, but if you want a bigger display its much more difficult, you would need a 6k monitor like Apple's new expensive one, and a correspondingly powerful GPU to achieve it. So you have to decide if you want the gorgeous Apple retina look but less desktop...or go for say 120-150% scaling and it will still look very very good...better scaling then without HiDPI...and have much more usable desktop space.
 
Last edited:
This is also one of the reasons that I'm hopeful that Apple is going to get back into the display game this year (beyond the Pro Display XDR): the display market has emphatically not gone along with Apple after the release of the 5k iMac, and has instead stalled out at 4k, and at screen sizes that put them outside Apple's ideal DPI. This means that 27" and 32" 4k displays run at their "true Retina" resolutions (½ the actual resolution, as on the iMac) will have much lower effective DPI: just over 80dpi on a 27", ~70dpi on a 32". It's not an accident that you're emulating 3008x1692 on your 32", since that's the "looks like" default resolution of the 32" Pro Display XDR.
Yes. The Pro Display XDR would be fantastic of course, but I can't afford it and what I'm running still gives me pleasure every day its so much nicer then displays of the past.

6k is needed really for the XDR and a GPU that can do 6k. And a mac that can handle a 6k GPU card..hehe.. Let's not even talk about 8k which tends to require two cards. The amount of bandwidth needed for 8k starts to impact throughput on the PCI bus as well. it starts to be a diminishing and expensive return both in terms of $$ cost as well as processing cost. I mean how bad do we really need the beautiful Retina look after all? Some day it will be common place and hard to believe we ever used less, but I think its years away. For that look you need to be using either the XDR on a system that can support it...or else use a smaller 27" or smaller monitor probably running at 2560x1440.

The possibility of using an UltraWide monitor with 5k of desktop points..would mean what..10k pixel hardware? We aren't going to be there any time soon.

Anyway, the moral of the story is..
  1. if you lust after the "retina" look use a 27" monitor or smaller at 4k, or 5k hardware resolution. That will probably end up 2560x1440 desktop points.

  2. If you want an ultra-wide panel to run at native resolution, no HiDPI at all

  3. for a 4k or 5k non-ultra-wide monitor, you should use HiDPI, and probably in scaling between 120-150%, to achieve normal font sizes and best possible scaling.
 
Been happy with my new Lenovo 30 inch so far. I tired out an awesome Samsung 30 inch- great picture and nice adjustment features, but got many green pixelation failures and it glitches out a lot. Could have been a fault with that single monitor, but I didn’t want to chance it. Went back and decided to go with the Lenovo. It’s a beautiful picture but not much adjustment features.

I put a ton of time into gauging the best picture with deep colors and with least amount of glare. Gloss finish picture is the most vivid by far, but the slightest bit of background light will expose your reflection in the screen. I’d stay with a flat mat finish.
 
Ok. Ordered the Samsung 49 inch Odyssey G9 -- not the "Neo" version, which costs quite a bit more and, as others have speculated, doesn't on the face of it appear to offer anything meaningful to us composers.

I will report back when it arrives.

Thank you so much everyone for your advice, points of view, and recommendations. This is the kind of thread that I am so grateful for around here.

Kind regards,

John
 
Last edited:
Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others wrote above, however, I decided against paying 160% for a very marginally better picture; "better picture" is not really the priority for a DAW / notation computer monitor.

So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the newer "Neo" version a bit. On the one I have, I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me.

I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.

Samsung G9.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others speculated above, however, I decided paying 160% for a very marginally better picture was overkill for a DAW / notation computer monitor.

So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the "Neo" version a bit. I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me.

I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.

Samsung G9.jpg
Awesome choice. No, I'm not jealous, really... :roflmao:

And you are correct, iPhones aren't stellar in dealing with pincushion distortion. If you want to post a more accurate shot, don't point down, instead sit in your chair and shoot it eye-level, making sure the phone is parallel with the monitor, not tilted forward or back. When you get the angle right, your walls will be straight.

I guess that's one takeaway from shooting real estate for 9 years, lol...
 
Mondo jelly. A 49” ultrawide is my ideal setup. Seek out window management software that allows you to easily configure and partition the screen into multiple zones, you’ll find using them way easier if the size of the screen ever feels unwieldy.
 
Bought the Samsung Odyssey G9 -- NOT the "Samsung Neo G9," which is newer and has better reviews for picture. As others wrote above, however, I decided against paying 160% for a very marginally better picture; "better picture" is not really the priority for a DAW / notation computer monitor.

So far, it seems great and I don't regret skipping the newer "Neo" version a bit. On the one I have, I can see three or more pages of score and still have the DAW open to work (see photo). in the photo below, the curvature seems slightly extreme -- maybe the iPhone lens? -- but it feels fine to me.

I'm using the maximum resolution of 5120 x 1440 which is a bit small from about 3-4 feet away. Though small, however, the notes and typefaces are adequately sharp, even with a fairly modest graphics card on my Mac.

Samsung G9.jpg
Looks great John, congrats! I'm zeroing in on what to get and that one is in the finals. I haven't much leeway space-wise if it's going to fit the set up I like in my room. I wonder if you get a chance if could you tell me what the full depth is back to front? From the very back of the stand to the point where the edges of the monitors reach their most forward point? Measured straight back to front, not sideways? Though full side to side measurement would be lovely as well.

I am willing to pay for this information in liquor, ham sandwiches or treat of choice, free delivery.
 
Top Bottom