Cubase and 4K monitors?

Let us know!

Will do, Should be here tomorrow and I have a day off Friday so I will be doing a few trax w/the 50" :smiley:


:nerd:

I created a 3840x2160 cutout of a screencut of Cubase 7 and iZotope RX3 to take into shops to see what it would look like on various TVs, particularly the Sony 55X9004A. I included RX3 because it would really benefit from having as many pixels as it can.

Unfortunately, I did it as a .png, which wouldn’t work in the Sony, but it did work in the Samsung UA55F9000A, and it looked very crisp and legible, though the in-your-face retail colour settings were to much.

I want to use a 4K TV to replace both my two Dell 30"s and my current Samsung 40" TV. Ideally, I would like it to have passive 3D, which is optimum on 4K, but major manufacturers like Samsung and Panasonic make only active. LG’s top model is passive, along with the Sony 55X9004A. The latter has side speakers, but their model 55X8504 without the speakers is active. Que?

Also, the passive LG and Sony models are >50% heavier (33kg) than the Samsung (20kg), which makes a real difference when using a VESA mount.

Looks like I will have to decide if passive 3D, for the few times that I will want it, is worth the extra weight-bearing structure I would need to build.

First reasonably priced 4K TV with HDMI 2 (@60Hz refresh rate):

In Australia and elsewhere, the model is 49UB850T, but it does seem to be a reasonable price for the full package, especially compared to the lower end Samsungs that don’t even have 3D, let alone passive like the LG. While 3D is not the be-all, it seems odd to not included it at all on TVs that are still in the premium price bracket.

However, it is being released at the end of May here, so I eagerly await in-depth reviews and a chance to look at them for real with a couple of mockup screens.

It all really hinges on availability of HDMI 2.0 video cards. I am surprised that video card manufacturers are dragging their feet here, as 4K seems to be the first TV technology that really has a serious chance of serving as general low-cost (relative to ‘pro’) computer displays. While some TV manufacturers have put DisplayPort 1.2 on some of their models, they have a whole other target market for which such connections are just unnecessary overhead expense.

With gamers being the traditional cutting-edge consumer spenders on video technology, the card makers seem to be ignoring their enthusiasm for 4K at higher rates than 25/30Hz.

I use Cubase 7.5 with a 3-screen setup through nVidia’s Surround technology. The overall resolution is 5760x1080, which amounts to over 6K. I don’t see why 4K would be a problem…

I know it’s a gaming setup, but it works fantastically with Cubase and Sony Vegas Pro.

The problem is that TV makers and video card makers are NOT both using the same connector protocols that enable 4K at anything more than 30Hz, which as a gamer I suspect you would not be happy with!

My three screens are all connected via HDMI. And they’re all standard “full HD” (1920x1080.) In other words, nothing fancy. If they weren’t monitors but TV screens, it would be exactly the same. Unlike with ATI cards, nVidia Surround technology does NOT necessarily need display ports. In fact the three screens can all be attached to HDMI ports. BTW, the resolution is 5760x1080 @ 60 Hz. My GPU is the amazing GTX780ti. Definitely pricey ($700 street), but well worth it. Oh, and this monster is also incredibly quiet. If you have a good computer case with great noise reduction (like the Antec Sonata III), you don’t even hear it until you put your ear to the case.

I have always used fanless cards over the last few years.

4K offers the advantage of a contiguous (no bezels) workspace that is equivalent to four full HD TV/monitors. I want it especially for using RX3.

However, 4K will not work on any of my video cards, and while there are several that will work at 30Hz via HDMI 1.4 connections, none have HDMI 2.0, which has the larger bandwidth for 4K at 60Hz.

Well, I do a lot of video editing, so fanless cards are really not an option for me, because their performance is abysmal (and yet perfectly competent for DAW use.)

Yes, I know about the 4k requirements, what I was trying to say is that for the purpose of running a DAW with as many pixels as possible (i.e. enlarged workspace), a 3-screen setup like mine is still the most practical solution, and one that wouldn’t require super-expensive hardware (you can still have a 3-screen setup even with a cheap GPU, although you will definitely need more than one.) I don’t spread the sequencer page over multiple screens, I actually only use the central screen for that, the right screen for the mixer and the left screen for VST management. So the bezel thing is really not an issue for me.

Taken from Nvidia forum:

"Here is my conversation with Nvidia:

Karthik: Hi, my name is Karthik. How may I help you?

Ed Mario: It appears that all 4K televisions are/will support HDMI 2.0. When will your video cards support this. Will existing cards support 2.0 with a firmware update?

Karthik: Hello Ed,

Karthik: This will be a hardware feature & the HDMI 2.0 will not be updated via firmware.

Ed Mario: Thank you, so what will be the first hardware, and when will it be available? I heed to build a new computer and with the 4K monitors coming will wait for this feature.

Karthik: There is no confirmed details on the model number for now as it is still under testing, so officially I cannot comment on this yet but the future cards will support this."

And that they are still at the ‘no details’ stage this late in HDMI 2.0’s availability does not bode well.

Panasonic had a 4K TV with HDMI 2.0 almost immediately the official spec was announced. HDMI 2.0 had been a long time coming, so if the card makers were taking it seriously, they would have been able to put out cards just as quickly.

Oh, and Panasonic also equips their 4K TV’s with DisplayPort.

They really are the odd one out. Unfortunately, they are targeting enterprises with large screen offerings and don’t have the range that suits us with more modest requirements and deskspace!

For example, in Australia, they only have a 65" 4K, whereas the likes of Samsung , Sony and LG have a range of models from 48" up.

Personally, I believe the higher picture quality of 4K isn’t very obvious unless you have a really big screen, let’s say 60" or larger, so IMHO the 48" models don’t make much sense (and maybe Australian distributors are wiser than the others…) But 48" models are a lot cheaper and people will buy them just to brag that they have a 4K tv. That is until larger models become more affordable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I think it is rather dismissive and a put-down (“maybe Australian distributors are wiser than the others” - WT?) of those who may not want to make your choice!

Habitual watching distance?
It all depends how far from the TV one sits. It may be a bit of ‘chicken and the egg’ but maybe we don’t sit close to normal TVs because we couldn’t without noticing the pixels, so if one has set up one’s loungeroom with a ‘car parking space’ between oneself and the TV, then of course only the larger TVs work for 4K.

However, I have always been one to sit closer to a smaller and cheaper TV than sit further away and have to spend twice as much just to get a larger one!

But 4K is the enabler for a converged paradigm, where one can use it for a large monitor pixel space, but also sit a little further back when one wants to enjoy a relatively close and immersive hi-res experience.

The retina myth
I know when Apple used the phrase retina it was supposed to define the maximum pixel density per viewing distance, beyond which it was ‘pointless’ going denser because most were not supposed to be able to tell the difference.

Well, it seemed to totally ignore that most could see a difference between 300 and 600 dpi when it came to printing, and there were reasons why masters were done on 2400dpi Linotype machines.

My Note 2 (1280x800) was supposedly retina at the 35cm (14") I looked at it, but my Note 3 (1920x1080) makes everything, especially small text, so much clearer at the same distance.

Horses for courses
Now if you want to sit far away enough from a TV that for you 4K will only work on larger ones, then that is your prerogative, but the wide interest in use of TVs as 4K monitors suggests that many are not wanting to accept such limitations.

For sitting at about 70cm (28") from a monitor, a 120cm (48") 4K TV would have pixels only a few % larger than those on my Dell 76cm (30" - 2560x1600), while giving me a perfectly usable (that is, no driveways between the pixels!) TV if I sit at about 1 metre (39").

For using as a monitor, I think the smaller models are far more suitable, and for those doing photography, the various 32" 4K monitors are much closer to photo density.

AOC U2868PQU just release for 550 bucks

I like to sit back when I’m working, anything less than 50" at 4K will be too small for me. Most likely will go with 55" when they are affordable enough (new Seiki Pro and Vizio models will start shipping this fall).

28" at 4k is just crazy, except maybe for photo editing work.

it’s not crazy, most of the new ultrabooks comes with full hd + 13 pouces => smaller ppp than 4k +28p.

Got a Samsung 4K curved TV. Put it at the backend of the desk, put each touchscreen off to the sides, and built a frame to hold the main speakers (on monitor arms), and the subwoofer, PVR and BluRay over the top.

Had to do a few settings changes to get it looking right across all sources, but it is really the centre-piece now!

With Cubase:
SOK-MUS.Studio-mixing_desk-Cubase.2014-07-09.jpg
With RX3: