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

[theluggage]

But in all honesty, even with a scaling different than 1:1 or 2:1, the difference is ever so slight when you move the monitor further away, because it is a 32" not a 27", and that matters.

Oh, I agree - it’s just a hint of “softness“ that (IMHO) you won’t notice in day-to-day use, but it is there (and some people seem more worried by it than others).

Funny, it doesn’t seem so long ago that we were all cooing over the incredible sharpness of the new 2560x1440 Cinema Display…

 

[hans1972]

I am not running the Dell at 2x - I am running it at 3840 x 2160, so Mac OS scaling is 1:1 - even better than 2x.
60cm for 27" is quite right, but it is too close for a 32" from my perspective. The Dell U3223QE is 400 nits monitor, and this is plenty for me.

My distance to my 27" iMac is 45 cm on average and I am leaning towards the screen many times when I am working.

With my viewing distance you clearly see a difference between 27" 5K displays and 4K displays with macOS when it comes to text.

 

[Fordski]

This has been a great thread that has helped me to understand the differences in display tech and real world performance. Thanks to everyone who shared their knowledge.

I use a 32" LG 4K monitor and have been quite happy with it. However, playing around with the scaling settings I can notice the differences (in text particularly) with various resolutions. Unfortunately 3840x2160 is too small for my older eyes and 1920x1080 is just too big for normal usage. Is it worth getting a 5K monitor for the proper pixel matching, that's a question I'll need to ponder once I get an opportunity to see a studio monitor in person. (they're not yet available in Mexico).

 

[vddobrev]

This has been a great thread that has helped me to understand the differences in display tech and real world performance. Thanks to everyone who shared their knowledge.

I use a 32" LG 4K monitor and have been quite happy with it. However, playing around with the scaling settings I can notice the differences (in text particularly) with various resolutions. Unfortunately 3840x2160 is too small for my older eyes and 1920x1080 is just too big for normal usage. Is it worth getting a 5K monitor for the proper pixel matching, that's a question I'll need to ponder once I get an opportunity to see a studio monitor in person. (they're not yet available in Mexico).

It really depends what you are trying to achieve. Here are some facts for you to consider:

- You already have a bigger display, a 32" compared to 27" Studio Display
- Yes, yours is 4K and ASD is 5K, no question the ASD has a higher PPI
- 2:1 scaling is the default of ASD, and that is 2560x1440. How does 2560x1440 scaling look on your 32"? It will look smaller on the ASD, but pixels will be perfect. You will have to bring the ASD closer to you so that you see the smaller text.

From my perspective, for your "older eyes" ASD will not offer a benefit, because default resolution of 2560x1440 will be on a smaller screen and text will be smaller, unless you move the display closer, much closer.

Just experiment with your 32" 4K, try 3008x1692 scaling, and move the display a bit away from you and you will not see the pixels.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I will start backwards from your post:

- Arms length is a guidance invented when displays were 17". Online monitor positioning guides state "one arm length, but if your monitor is big, move it further". 32" at arms length is no ergonomic, it has to be at least one and a half arms length away. The proper guidance is using angles of viewing that will not cause too much neck/head rotation, but I will not go into that, if you want you can research on the subject (we have a whole department in our company doing just that, and they adjust our workstations each 6 months to make sure no repetitive stress injury).

- PPI and "retina" is relative to the viewing distance.

- It is a fact that ASD has a higher PPI, and the Dell has lower, but it is also a fact that the ASD is 27" and the Dell is 32". I am not sure what is this general misconception on the internet that you have to view the display at the same distance...

- Proper retina can be achieved by PPI and viewing distance together, not by one of this. The article you quote does not account for viewing distance, so is not a real scientific article. It is one thing to view a 21" monitor at arms length, and another to view a 32". One arm length is not going to be proper in terms of viewing angles.

- If we went by "retina" invented term, then our 75" inch TVs should be 16K. But they are not, they are 4K, because we watch the from farm away, and we do not see the pixels.

- I would not want to have the ASD in front of me for a second because of its terrible reflections - I see myself and all surroundings. It feels like a mirror. I had iMac 5K, as I stated above, and I sold it.

- 4K is a high DPI display, and depending on the size, you only have to adjust the viewing distance for it to become retina. Try it for yourself. Read ergonomic guidance in terms of viewing angles and neck/head rotation and tilting, and you will see what I mean. If 32" is too close, you will suffer from too much neck/head rotation/tilt to see the peripheral of the screen.

A wonderfully comprehensive post from someone who understands that "retina" is a marketing term and the end goal of the "retina" experience can be achieved many ways.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Unfortunately 3840x2160 is too small for my older eyes and 1920x1080 is just too big for normal usage. Is it worth getting a 5K monitor for the proper pixel matching

I've grown to love and enjoy 32" 4k with scaling to an effective 2304 x 1296
Just works great for my eyes and distance and how much I like to have on screen, etc.

My dream monitor is a 32" size with 5k resolution for perfect pixel doubling and an effective 1440p working resolution -- but everything on screen would be physically larger than the 27"/5k/effective 1440p that Apple has decided is "best".

The reason I don't use a scaled 1440p at 32" is the 4k part.
I enjoy the better smoothness of 2304 x 1296 scaled with "only" 4k pixels to work with.

 

[vddobrev]

A wonderfully comprehensive post from someone who understands that "retina" is a marketing term and the end goal of the "retina" experience can be achieved many ways.

Thank you very much for this comment, much appreciated!

 

[vddobrev]

I've grown to love and enjoy 32" 4k with scaling to an effective 2304 x 1296
Just works great for my eyes and distance and how much I like to have on screen, etc.

My dream monitor is a 32" size with 5k resolution for perfect pixel doubling and an effective 1440p working resolution -- but everything on screen would be physically larger than the 27"/5k/effective 1440p that Apple has decided is "best".

The reason I don't use a scaled 1440p at 32" is the 4k part.
I enjoy the better smoothness of 2304 x 1296 scaled with "only" 4k pixels to work with.

For me personally 1440p UI elements are a bit too large on 32", I think for me 3008x1692 gives the perfect balance of UI elements and 32" size. So that will be the 6K Apple XDR for a perfect 2:1 scaling, but it is out of my price range

 

[turbineseaplane]

For me personally 1440p UI elements are a bit too large on 32", I think for me 3008x1692 gives the perfect balance of UI elements and 32" size. So that will be the 6K Apple XDR for a perfect 2:1 scaling, but it is out of my price range

Sometimes I wonder how good/bad the experience would be if I had that Dell 32" 8k display?

Do you think even scaled modes start to get "nearly retina 2x quality" with that many pixels?

 

[vddobrev]

Sometimes I wonder how good/bad the experience would be if I had that Dell 32" 8k display?

Do you think even scaled modes start to get "nearly retina 2x quality" with that many pixels?

I almost purchased it... It looks so tempting... but before I did I stopped and realized I will need an external eGPU (for my Mac mini, or my MP6,1)... or a new Mac Studio or Mac Pro.

Edit: Even different than 2:1 scaling would look awesome on an 8K on theory. But one thing to have in mind is macOS disabled sub pixel font smoothing ages ago... so unless we see it in person, we will never know. Say you do 2:1 on an 8K or 2.5:1 - the pixel size is so small, on a 32" (31.5" actual) I am certain you will not be able to see the difference at proper distance of 85cm-90cm.

One more edit: The Dell 8K in local currency is 6500, while the XDR is 11500, so yes I was considering it before I purchased the Dell U3223QE.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I almost purchased it... It looks so tempting... but before I did I stopped and realized I will need an external eGPU (for my Mac mini, or my MP6,1)... or a new Mac Studio or Mac Pro.

Maybe I should look out for deals
I think I could run it no problem on my Hack with the RX 6800 and multiple DP ports, etc

 

[Fordski]

Just experiment with your 32" 4K, try 3008x1692 scaling, and move the display a bit away from you and you will not see the pixels.

I tried your experiment with 3008x1692 and yes, I do notice greater clarity in the text at this resolution! While it's a little on the small side I am getting used to it and I do enjoy the greater screen space. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Ziperix]

Most people who complain about lack of HDR don't know what HDR is, no your ****** 200 dollar 300. nits PC monitor doesn't have real HDR. If you want real HDR you either need to pay a lot (Macbook screen, iPad screen with 1.6k nits or XDR, there are some 1k nits PC displays but not close in overall quality to studio display) or you can buy a mid-tier TV.

 

[Ziperix]

Nothing wrong with it. Just seems the price/performance ratio is a bit off.

You can get a good 4k 27" screen for like 500USD. It might not be as good as this Apple display, but is the Apple 3x as good?


On the other hand, people are getting used to the HDR displays. For example, on the new 14/16 MBPs, the really dark blacks are quite a revelation.
So to make it consistent, Apple could have included HDR.

So, either selling the current display at $999
Or, making it HDR and selling it for $1599-1999

The way this product is priced and marketed is a bit awkward. Neither really matches the quality of the MBP screens to demand a premium, nor cheap enough to not care about it.

It doesn't matter if its 500 for me, if it's not 5k its almost unusable for me as I write and read text 10h per day and 4k at 27 inch is unbearable in macOS

 

[turbineseaplane]

4k at 27 inch is unbearable in macOS

To each our own, obviously, but -- lol - c'mon
For anyone else considering this, I encourage you try it yourself.

I have used and loved 4k 24", 27", 28" and 32" class monitors with macOS

I'm sitting in front of a 32" 4k/144hz IPS panel that is bloody gorgeous, even in macOS.

 

[patrick.a]

Most people who complain about lack of HDR don't know what HDR is, no your ****** 200 dollar 300. nits PC monitor doesn't have real HDR. If you want real HDR you either need to pay a lot (Macbook screen, iPad screen with 1.6k nits or XDR, there are some 1k nits PC displays but not close in overall quality to studio display) or you can buy a mid-tier TV.

Almost every iPhone that‘s been sold in the last 2 - 3 years has a XDR screen and considering the fact that this is a mac forum I‘d say most people here might actually already own a HDR display because of that.

 

[kreasu_]

I think the powersupply is really finicky, like maybe a shielding issue, on some power strips it causes some display issues that require a power cycle

 

[k995]

To each our own, obviously, but -- lol - c'mon
For anyone else considering this, I encourage you try it yourself.

I have used and loved 4k 24", 27", 28" and 32" class monitors with macOS

I'm sitting in front of a 32" 4k/144hz IPS panel that is bloody gorgeous, even in macOS.

48" LG C1 I use to game and write (so yeah several hours a day of text) and I wouldnt change it for even the more expensive studio display.

Even from my old 2012 mbp macos looks great, I dont really get these people that same to stare at their monitors looking for pixels.

 

[ngaynanggm34289]

A display for the masses was expected, especially for a cheaper price..

 

[Lammers]

A display for the masses was expected, especially for a cheaper price..

What kind of specification were you expecting, and at what price?

 

[UMHurricanes34]

Does anyone know of an alternative monitor that has a build quality even close to the Studio Display? This thing is rock solid and beautifully engineered and assembled. I seriously don’t think that exists in another display, but I’d love to see if it did.

Add in legitimately great speakers and a (controversial as it may be) webcam. It’s certainly overpriced, but I just don’t think a true apples to apples comparison exists across every aspect of the product. Sure you can get a high resolution display for cheaper. But that’s not the ONLY thing you’re paying for here.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Does anyone know of an alternative monitor that has a build quality even close to the Studio Display? This thing is rock solid and beautifully engineered and assembled. I seriously don’t think that exists in another display, but I’d love to see if it did.

Add in legitimately great speakers and a (controversial as it may be) webcam.

All nice, but most people care as much or more about the actual panel and technology in use.

And speakers are a mixed bag - no matter how nice they are, they are blown away by most anything external that folks tend to already have or prefer - particularly if actually using this "in a Studio" in a video production role (as just one example).

Much as folks like "not having the computer in the display" -- the speakers are better off being an external, high quality kit for many as well.

 

[Lammers]

Does anyone know of an alternative monitor that has a build quality even close to the Studio Display? This thing is rock solid and beautifully engineered and assembled. I seriously don’t think that exists in another display, but I’d love to see if it did.

Add in legitimately great speakers and a (controversial as it may be) webcam. It’s certainly overpriced, but I just don’t think a true apples to apples comparison exists across every aspect of the product. Sure you can get a high resolution display for cheaper. But that’s not the ONLY thing you’re paying for here.

The frustrating / depressing thing is why didn’t LG ship a display like this years ago instead of continuing to ship the UltraFine 5K with the ever-present criticisms about the case and stand. Presumably a lack of product leadership and vision at LG.

 

[Lammers]

All nice, but most people care as much or more about the actual panel and technology in use.

And speakers are a mixed bag - no matter how nice they are, they are blown away by most anything external that folks tend to already have or prefer - particularly if actually using this "in a Studio" in a video production role (as just one example).

Much as folks like "not having the computer in the display" -- the speakers are better off being an external, high quality kit for many as well.

I’m not sure that’s true - look at the difference between the response to the ASD versus the LG UltraFine 5K. They have more or less the same panel but it has long been common (even fashionable) to criticise and shun the LG.

I suspect it won’t take long before Apple will have shipped more ASDs than LG have ever shipped UltraFine 5Ks.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They have more or less the same panel but it has long been common (even fashionable) to criticise and shun the LG.

Mix of many things for sure.
LG panel had issues with image retention and the build quality of the connectors was bad too