I'm genuinely surprised by the negative reviews of the Studio Display

[BeatCrazy]

Comparing with the LG 27UL850:

• Text is substantially sharper. 4K -> 5K is a huge difference. Much bigger difference than I expected.
• Local dimming zones are good to have but it's not that bad on the ASD. I wish it had HDR / mini-LED. I just tried out some HDR demo videos on YouTube - subjective feeling: ASD - the picture looks good, better than I expected; MacBook Pro XDR screen - NOW THAT'S BEAUTIFUL. The contrast is unbelievable.
• The monitor is very bright. In an indoor environment, only half of the brightness is already bright enough.
• Colour reproduction is excellent, the LG monitor always looks a bit washed out - especially in higher brightness.
• The body of the monitor looks very good and it's very sturdy.
• The speakers are okay - miles better than the LG monitor.
• Being able to directly control the settings from macOS is another big plus, I HATE using the joystick under the LG monitor, it feels flimsy and the UI looks like something from 1990s. For instance, if I have to turn off the monitor, I need to press upwards, then push the joystick towards the back of the monitor. All other settings in the menu make the picture look weird.
• The webcam? Quality aside, I don't even want to use it, because at appropriate height, the webcam is focusing on top of my head.
• The stand. Bad bad bad, it's too low and a monitor riser is required. I have a minimalist aluminium stand for my iMac so I'm using it to raise the ASD by about 3 inches. It's much better to be used with my MBP this way. If I have to say a good thing, it's that the stand is very sturdy, much more so than the iMac 27". When I lift up my iMac 27", the stand loses balance and dangles around, the stand of the ASD stays in place.

View attachment 1982415
It also gives me extra storage above and below the ASD.

Thanks for the review. I also have the LG 27UL850, and am considering replacing it with the ASD for my WFH setup. I actually prefer a lower-height monitor, and would continue to use my Logitech 4K Pro webcam instead of the built-in.

The only thing that keeps me from pulling the trigger? I occasionally need to connect a Windows PC or laptop! If I had some way of reliably converting DP or HDMI(ideally) to USB-C, I'd be ready to pull the trigger.

Is the Club 3D CAC-1332 HDMI to USB-C (Female) adapter just the ticket for ASD owners? If, so I can't seem to find it for sale anywhere? 4K is fine for me.

 

[Chancha]

There is no „happens to be“ serendipity to this. This is the exact reason why Apple told LG to develop a 27“ 5K panel back when they planned to elevate the iMac to „retina display“ standard. Without Apple, a 27“ 5K display panel would very probably never have existed.

I was responding to “macOS is optimized for 5k not 4k” statement. Apple optimized retina resolution at a given viewing distance (it is angular resolution to be precise). And then 27” happens to be the sort of ideal size of a desktop display for regular desk viewing that is 2-3 feet.

It is an important distinction to acknowledge because you are not “limited to 5k“ if you want sharpness out of macOS, I even pointed out Apple‘s own 21.5” iMac was exactly at UHD 4k resolution. This is clearly an example of 4k optimization in macOS.

 

[Cashmonee]

I was responding to “macOS is optimized for 5k not 4k” statement. Apple optimized retina resolution at a given viewing distance (it is angular resolution to be precise). And then 27” happens to be the sort of ideal size of a desktop display for regular desk viewing that is 2-3 feet.

It is an important distinction to acknowledge because you are not “limited to 5k“ if you want sharpness out of macOS, I even pointed out Apple‘s own 21.5” iMac was exactly at UHD 4k resolution. This is clearly an example of 4k optimization in macOS.

That is sort of right. Apple feels the ideal size of OS elements on a 27" screen is 2560x1440. However, the individual pixels on a QHD monitor (2560x1440) are visible at any distance less than 32". Seeing as most desks are 24"-30" wide, this presents a problem. 4k could work because the individual pixels are not visible until you are within 21". Unfortunately, Apple ditched non-integer scaling many years ago (likely because they were not planning on their users using external monitors since they were clearly moving away from headless Macs at the time). So, to achieve 2560x1440-equivalent sized elements on the screen while using integer scaling, Apple just multiplied it by 2. That gives you a resolution of 5120x2880 or 5K. That is far more pixels than is necessary, but the only way to reasonable integer scale 2560x1440 elements. If Apple had decided that 1920x1080 (HD) was the right size, we would have ended up with 4K. Apple also could have continued to use vector scaling or not eliminated anti-aliasing for fonts and 4K would have worked better. Even without those, it is debatable how much people truly notice the "fuzziness" of macOS at 4K vs 5K on a 27" monitor at normal viewing distances. There is certainly the potential of placebo at play and I suspect most that claim a huge difference would not notice it if it were a controlled test.

TL;DR: The term "Retina Resolution" is a marketing term made up by Apple that is not supported by physics. 4K is enough for a 27" monitor on a regular desk at normal viewing distances.

 

[Chancha]

That is sort of right. Apple feels the ideal size of OS elements on a 27" screen is 2560x1440. However, the individual pixels on a QHD monitor (2560x1440) are visible at any distance less than 32". Seeing as most desks are 24"-30" wide, this presents a problem. 4k could work because the individual pixels are not visible until you are within 21". Unfortunately, Apple ditched non-integer scaling many years ago (likely because they were not planning on their users using external monitors since they were clearly moving away from headless Macs at the time). So, to achieve 2560x1440-equivalent sized elements on the screen while using integer scaling, Apple just multiplied it by 2. That gives you a resolution of 5120x2880 or 5K. That is far more pixels than is necessary, but the only way to reasonable integer scale 2560x1440 elements. If Apple had decided that 1920x1080 (HD) was the right size, we would have ended up with 4K. Apple also could have continued to use vector scaling or not eliminated anti-aliasing for fonts and 4K would have worked better. Even without those, it is debatable how much people truly notice the "fuzziness" of macOS at 4K vs 5K on a 27" monitor at normal viewing distances. There is certainly the potential of placebo at play and I suspect most that claim a huge difference would not notice it if it were a controlled test.

TL;DR: The term "Retina Resolution" is a marketing term made up by Apple that is not supported by physics. 4K is enough for a 27" monitor on a regular desk at normal viewing distances.

Currently no major desktop OS manages to do a fully scalable vector GUI, HiDPI or not. You can sort of see how it would behave if one existed, because this is already done on e-ink devices. Of course not being full color helps but the acuity of even fine kerns of typefaces are achievable without going excessively high pixel density. So yes this is both a hardware and software problem it seems.

”Retina resolution” can be physically sound if it is described as an angular resolution targeting for a certain visual acuity, because it would have to take into account viewing distance, and horizontal field of view. Therefore it doesn’t make as much sense as when describe and compare screens by their pixel density in PPI, but of course it is a much easier concept to understand. The iPhone mini for instance has a PPI of 477 while the 5k iMac / Studio display ”only has” 218. They look about as dense as each other because people put a small phone much closer to their face than a desktop screen.

Another factor is the person’s eyesight. I got a younger coworker who manages 32” at native UHD 4k for his desktop display, and he never bends forward or had to pinch. I asked him to see if he can use my iMac 5k at native he said no, but managed one scale down which was I think 3800 pixel wide. My older self must resort to the default 2560x1440.

 

[Fravin]

• Lack of HDR is valid, but lack of ProMotion I don't think is. Outside of something special on Apple's side, I don't think Thunderbolt 4 can drive 5K at 120hz with all the color and extras that Apple wants.

If think it actually is. MacOs is so beautiful on an 120Hz display it makes me wondering if it wasn't designed to work on such high frame rate.

And I was disappointed when ASD was revealed.

 

[chikorita157]

Re: the Dell -- why are you dogging on a monitors specs when you know those before purchase?

It's like buying a tiny car and then complaining about not enough room -- ?

I needed another monitor for my telework setup and I had to get another monitor for my personal setup, whatever I can get at the time that can work, which is a 2k 27” display, but not one that is color accurate with P3 or AdobeRGB, which my LG had the latter and look great. 4K 27” doesn’t scale properly on macOS and looks like garbage, which is why I avoid them. This means spending more money, which I don’t mind if the monitor will last 7-10 years. I do plan to get a second one or a “new” Ultrafine 5K later as a second monitor on when I can afford it.

There is an article why 27” 4K displays look bad. In most cases, you are better off with a non-retina display instead of 4K as seen in this article that describes the limitations:

Mac external displays for designers and developers, part 2

Since writing about Mac external displays in 2016, not much has changed. LG, Dell, Samsung, and other display makers have either never catered for the specs many Mac designers and developers want, or they’ve reluctantly produced products that have been short-lived or compromised.

bjango.com

I just wish that there are more 5K monitor options. That said, Windows DPI scaling is a lot worse since it depends on the apps supporting it properly. If it doesn’t, you get blurry scaled up apps or apps that don’t scale at all, which I experienced with the Surface Pro 2, before I retired the tablet and replaced it with an iPad Pro.

 

[croco_dile]

Putting the lack of features and price point aside, I find this monitor to be Apple arrogance at its best.

The over-engineered and non-removable power cable
The over-engineered, non-exchangeable stand, and the ridiculous price for a height adjustment stand
The over-powered and over-engineer internal components

 

[CalMin]

Putting the lack of features and price point aside, I find this monitor to be Apple arrogance at its best.

The over-engineered and non-removable power cable
The over-engineered, non-exchangeable stand, and the ridiculous price for a height adjustment stand
The over-powered and over-engineer internal components

Yes - but's keep going:

- Overengineered speakers. Best in class/
- Overengineered panel. 600 nits, superb color.
- Overengineered beautiful aluminum chassis.
- Overengineered MacOS integration. TrueTone, auto brightness, keyboard adjustments.
- Overengineered non-reflective glass. Overengineered nano-texture glass as an option.

Sure it's everything you say (and it even over-engineers my wallet), but it is sure is purdy.

 

[croco_dile]

Yes - but's keep going:

- Overengineered speakers. Best in class/
- Overengineered panel. 600 nits, superb color.
- Overengineered beautiful aluminum chassis.
- Overengineered MacOS integration. TrueTone, auto brightness, keyboard adjustments.
- Overengineered non-reflective glass. Overengineered nano-texture glass as an option.

Sure it's everything you say (and it even over-engineers my wallet), but it is sure is purdy.

Purdy, absolutely, not disputing that.

I did not use 'overengineer' for the other aspects because I do not believe they are. What you called out are great, but they are not enough for a monitor, and they are not enough to hide Apple's arrogance in this product design.

 

[CalMin]

Purdy, absolutely, not disputing that.

I did not use 'overengineer' for the other aspects because I do not believe they are. What you called out are great, but they are not enough for a monitor, and they are not enough to hide Apple's arrogance in this product design.

Have you seen one or are you judging based on specs?

The main point of this thread was really about just how surprised I was upon using it. With all the negative news including from some of my most trusted journos, I was expecting it to suck.

But it doesn’t. It’s stunning and an absolute joy to use.

The specs don’t tell the story on this one. It’s truly a superb display.

 

[haruhiko]

When you say over you already put your subjective thought into it and it’s no longer objective. I can say you over judged this monitor too. Let people enjoy good products that they like. Don’t tell other people how to live their lives and don’t try to imply that these people who bought this monitor are idiots.

 

[croco_dile]

When you say over you already put your subjective thought into it and it’s no longer objective. I can say you over judged this monitor too. Let people enjoy good products that they like. Don’t tell other people how to live their lives and don’t try to imply that these people who bought this monitor are idiots.

I have not said that, people absolutely make their own choices.

My posts were about Apple, not the users.

 

[croco_dile]

Have you seen one or are you judging based on specs?

The main point of this thread was really about just how surprised I was upon using it. With all the negative news including from some of my most trusted journos, I was expecting it to suck.

But it doesn’t. It’s stunning and an absolute joy to use.

The specs don’t tell the story on this one. It’s truly a superb display.

I have seen one in store and admired its build quality. The rest did not fancy me, and as for my use cases, I needed something larger and also needed more than a single input port (I have a PS5 on my desk). So I went for a Dell U4021QW. For some reason, in Australia, the Dell and the Studio Display are in the price bracket, but in the US, the Dell costs $700 more, based on m research. Can someone verify that as I found it strange?

Again, I do not doubt the studio display is great for Mac users who are happy with 27" and treat 5K as a priority, but I am questioning some of Apple's design decisions.

 

[bluespark]

I can't wait for when they finally release a ProMotion desktop monitor or device (maybe an iMac)

The Apple vlog/pod-sphere is going to explode with superlative statements like "game changing", "can't go back", "this is SO SO good and I really really like it" (What Casey Liss says about everything he finally embraces)

So many Mac users don't realize how awesome high refresh rate is, just for normal usages.
The scrolling -- OH the scrolling!!! smooth as butter.

To anyone who hasn't experienced it -- "don't".
It really ruins 60hz displays for you -- even 5k/6k ones

Where are you finding this higher refresh rate with 5k/6k displays?

 

[Jrshelby]

Where are you finding this higher refresh rate with 5k/6k displays

I can't wait for when they finally release a ProMotion desktop monitor or device (maybe an iMac)

The Apple vlog/pod-sphere is going to explode with superlative statements like "game changing", "can't go back", "this is SO SO good and I really really like it" (What Casey Liss says about everything he finally embraces)

So many Mac users don't realize how awesome high refresh rate is, just for normal usages.
The scrolling -- OH the scrolling!!! smooth as butter.

To anyone who hasn't experienced it -- "don't".
It really ruins 60hz displays for you -- even 5k/6k ones

I noticed pro motion more on the iPad then I do on the Mac book pro. Maybe it has to do with the jerkiness in safari with promotion in macOS. My ASD seems smother in safari at 60 hrz. I think it’s a bigger deal on iPads because it gets rid of jelly scrolling in portrait mode. Since the ASD and most monitors refresh natively on a horizontal plane I’m gonna say not having a variable refresh rate is a non issue for most.

 

[Jrshelby]

Just repeating the reports. Ross Young is pretty insistent that this display is coming in June and he is extremely reliable to date.

I could see a market for a 27" ASD Pro with mini-LED, 120Hz, and HDR at $3,000.

Apple has already stated they can’t accomplish this through thunderbolt but they would be able to with internal displays like an iMac Pro because it would be directly soldered into the display controller.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple has already stated they can’t accomplish this through thunderbolt

Link please.

That is totally at odds with what they are doing with the XDR where they use DSC, which is a technology that could enable 5k/120hz, today, with just TB3

 

[Jrshelby]

Link please.

That is totally at odds with what they are doing with the XDR where they use DSC, which is a technology that could enable 5k/120hz, today, with just TB3

This is the XDR specs it is neither mini led nor is it capable of 120 hrz ProMotion

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is the XDR specs it is neither mini led nor is it capable of 120 hrz ProMotion

You misunderstood

I was asking for a link to a comment from Apple where they said they can’t do ProMotion (you were replying to someone above saying they said they can’t do that with TB)

 

[turbineseaplane]

This is the XDR specs it is neither mini led nor is it capable of 120 hrz ProMotion

Neither of which is due to a limitation of thunderbolt

DSC enables high refresh rate, full 10bit color at 5k even on TB3

Apple use DSC now, they can do this if they want

Page 20

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/pdf/Pro_Display_White_Paper_Feb_2020.pdf

 

[Jrshelby]

You misunderstood

I was asking for a link to a comment from Apple where they said they can’t do ProMotion (you were replying to someone above saying they said they can’t do that with TB)

Rene Richie said apple mentioned this on one of like 5 videos he made on the apple studio display

 

[turbineseaplane]

Rene Richie said apple mentioned this on one of like 5 videos he made on the apple studio display

Apple PR says “jump” and Rene says “how high”

The technology and throughput of thunderbolt using DSC are not - repeat not - why there isn’t yet a 5k 27” ProMotion display

 

[Jrshelby]

Apple PR says “jump” and Rene says “how high”

The technology and throughput of thunderbolt using DSC are not - repeat not - why there isn’t yet a 5k 27” ProMotion display

Show me a link how apple implements DSC on the XDR PRO display. I’m sure they have not implemented it. Would not know why. Is it their tech. Because we all know apple does not like to pay royalties for other technologies not of their own.

 

[Jrshelby]

Neither of which is due to a limitation of thunderbolt

DSC enables high refresh rate, full 10bit color at 5k even on TB3

Apple use DSC now, they can do this if they want

Page 20

https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/pdf/Pro_Display_White_Paper_Feb_2020.pdf

View attachment 1987121

So they implanted it to drive a 6 k panel wher does it show apple has implemented it to drive a 5 k or 6 k panel at 120 hrz. Apple clearly decided to make a bright hdr 6 k panel and a 5k 600 nits brightness. 5k and 6 k requires a lot of bandwidth. A Mac mini m1 slows down driving and XDR. Just not enough power on the GPU side. And a read a lot of requirements with the XDR statement are the M1 GPU even capable. It says it require a few things to make it happen. And as for Renee rictchie he is not an apple fanboy, he says it how it is.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Show me a link how apple implements DSC on the XDR PRO display. I’m sure they have not implemented it. Would not know why. Is it their tech. Because we all know apple does not like to pay royalties for other technologies not of their own.

It’s VESA, and I’ve found no confirmation that DSC specifically defines 5k, HDR AND 120 Hz over anything less than Displayport 2.0.