Where are the 8K Monitors?

[elvn]

I disagree about this. I really miss the form factor of the 49" superultrawide I had. Despite being the equivalent of two 27" 1440p monitors, it felt more like having 3 monitors because the area where you have the bezels on a dual monitor setup, is much more usable. Plus the display easier to place without weird compromises. I have my current dual 4K setup so that one display is in front of me and another one to the side so I don't have a bezel right in front of me and have to swivel to either side.

In a more gridlike 16:9 setup, I think the flexibility in window arrangement would make it better than a grid of 4K screens.

Ultrawide gaming IMO requires a curved display, so something more like the Samsung ARK is suited for that. It just lacks in resolution for desktop use.

What I was trying to get at was that I am leaning back toward an array of screens (without a middle bezel). The point was that once you dedicate some spaces you typically use for windows management, the window frames are almost like mini bezels anyway. I still wouldn't want a bezel right down the center though. Using multiple monitors you also can tilt the side screens inward, like a rough faceted curve of panels sort of... moreso than a single big flat screen anyway.

That 49" G95C LED LCD is curved but 1440 high. As full screen height windows spaces it wouldn't be bad as a secondary screen below a decent sized 4k gaming tv (like my 48cx for now).. The windows on my portrait mode 4k screens are partial height out of the 3840 tall portrait mode. So windows splitting the 3840 height into thirds is 2160 x 1280 tall, windows split 60%/40% of the screen height is 2160 x 2304 tall and 2160 x 1536 tall. A two window split of a 5120 x 1440 would be 2560 x1440 each window, just like a 27" 1440p, so not really that far off as window space in the array.

Agree about the ark , as you prob already surmise from my other replies. That in 8k just doesn't exist so there are some tradeoffs all around.

I'm leaning back toward the modular approach but I'm still tracking the 900D's gaming performance if/when more details come out.

 

[LukeTbk]

the window frames are almost like mini bezels anyway

Not sure I get what is being meant, say you use something like WIndows Fancy zone, you can set the window frame to be 0 pixel would you want and have your windows touching each other pixels wise (like it would happen if you just use the by default window management), would it not be the same for any window management software ? No bezels if wanted

 

[elvn]

I'm saying if you dial in a pretty stable array of windows and apps you typically use, you have delineating lines on the screen already, even as just tiles like you are saying. You still have the flexibility for other layouts or dedicating a large portion of a screen to a singular devolopment or graphics app of course... but what I was really trying to define was that as it applies to something like the 900D, at least how I would end up using one.

Here are some pictures of some setups I had been playing with in my head, including the most recent idea of tiling a 49" uw on the bottom and lifting my 48cx up some.

. . .

8k with the middle set up as a 4k width within your human central 60 to 50 degree viewing angle. That would leave 1920x wide column of space on each side in your periphery that you could turn your eyes/head aside to look at. You'd have to have the screen decoupled from the desk and set back a bit for a better viewing angle if you wanted to see the whole screen in your central viewing angle though, for fullscreen gaming and fullscreen media.

. .

. . .
someone's 8k tv with app windows in a 3x2 layout (3 equal sized windows above 3 equal sized windows). I'd probably stick to the one I outlined above though personally most of the time, or that with the middle 4k + 4k over/under as one huge app window with viewports/preview windows, toolboxes etc in it.

. . .

In my current array, the 48cx is at the bottom, with no 49" screen at all. The side 4k screens are more like two towers with their top portion exceeding the 4k's height.

If I end up doing this with a 49" LED LCD uw, I'd have the two middle screens pole mounted, and the side screens on slim spine'd floor tv stands. That way, with the desk set back 40" to 48" away, I could sink the whole array, being able to lower it vs the viewing angle / horizon of the desk surface due to the increased distance.

Some window layouts:

. . .

. . .

. . .

 

[elvn]

While the array with the 48" 4k OLED might seem like a lot, it's still less than 7680 x 2160 of a 8k screen. It's 3x 4k screens, and ~3.5x 4k screens if I added the 49" ultrawide - as compared to 4x 4k worth of pixel real-estate on a 8k screen. Plus, up until now, I mostly only use the OLED for gaming and media, or leave it blacked out (or with the "turn off the screen" emitters function activated). It might be nice having some LCD screen real estate beneath the 48" OLED, considering that.

Unfortunately, the sizes of 240hz screens so far are limited to 27, 32 16:9 , and 49" 5120x or 57" 4k+4k super ultrawides I think. The 900D's 240hz 4k upscaled to 8k is the only 42"+ 16:9 with any kind of ~ 240hz that I am aware of, whatever that "240hz" 4k gaming functionality and quality turns out to be. 144hz isn't too bad though I guess but not a big enough leap for me to upgrade for from 120 hz wise.

 

[LukeTbk]

You still have the flexibility for other layouts or dedicating a large portion of a screen to a singular devolopment or graphics app of course...

Hand for those line to be infinitely small instead of physical bezel.

The only seem significant of the multiple monitor setup over a single one that would be the same size and pixel count and curve, is how easy it is to handle a fullscreen application on a single monitor with something else on other monitors out of the box.

And now that what better for gaming can be different than for text obviously and burn-in issue, having an oled an non-oled monitors in your setup can have some obvious appeal, cost and use wise having just one sub part of your total screen estate being OLED seem like a good idea, because a single giant OLED monitor that always run with those defined frame and all day have a pixel line on their border of the windows always aligned at the same place, seem like a burn in risk, that exactly like having a taskbar

 

[improwise]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwVwvSjwcP0

 

[elvn]

Interesting but not really apples to apples comparing a 4k TV. For long 34 - 40 deg living room home theater enthusiasts it makes sense to compare them, since at those distances 4k already gets ~ 120PPD. For people looking for 8k desktop-app real-estate for PC use along with 240Hz 4k gaming, the bravia isn't in the same category. The backlight tech improvements are interesting but it's not 8k, it's just a 4k tv (and a 4k tv asking a 8k tv price at that).

 

[NitsBaby]

Yeah the QN900D in 8K is insane, but if you're getting it for gaming then you're getting it for the 4K 240hz...

and for that I'd recommend a 32" QD OLED monitor over it... and an S90C 144hz OLED over it as well...

8K is the big separator for me and it's limitation at 60hz is a downer. I'll be suggesting they add a DP 2.1 port to their flagship one connect box with UHBR20 support (even if they don't listen)

 

[improwise]

Yeah the QN900D in 8K is insane, but if you're getting it for gaming then you're getting it for the 4K 240hz...

and for that I'd recommend a 32" QD OLED monitor over it... and an S90C 144hz OLED over it as well...

8K is the big separator for me and it's limitation at 60hz is a downer. I'll be suggesting they add a DP 2.1 port to their flagship one connect box with UHBR20 support (even if they don't listen)

I actually just sent back my PG32UCDM as well in favor of the QN900C. But my use case is probably 90% productivity these days. That said, I did compare them side by side for gaming and the extra brightness and OK black levels of the QN900C actually held up quite well against the PG32UCDM, mostly due to the lack of brightness of the PG32UCDM. But if you are looking for mainly a gaming monitor that is also good for work, a 240 hz 4K OLED is probably they way to go. My original idea was actually to have the PG32UCDM on the side for gaming but the QN900C turned out to be better than expected even for my gaming needs. If the QN900D turns out to be true 240 hz I might upgrade down the line but so far it seems like it is mostly the same at more than 50% mark up.

 

[NitsBaby]

Yeah you're paying a lot extra for the gaming focused upgrades and the new processing/upscaling.


I was also looking at some older models just to have the 8K for desktop, but will just wait until either a GPU supports 8K 120hz via DSC with HDMI or a company adds DP 2.1 support with/without DSC not bothered, as long as it's an option in the future.

I think you made the right choice with the QN900C.

I think the QN800D is also worth a consideration I believe it's 165hz, so a nice middle ground between the QN900C and QN900D.

 

[improwise]

Yeah you're paying a lot extra for the gaming focused upgrades and the new processing/upscaling.


I was also looking at some older models just to have the 8K for desktop, but will just wait until either a GPU supports 8K 120hz via DSC with HDMI or a company adds DP 2.1 support with/without DSC not bothered, as long as it's an option in the future.

I think you made the right choice with the QN900C.

I think the QN800D is also worth a consideration I believe it's 165hz, so a nice middle ground between the QN900C and QN900D.

I would need to see some reliable source confirm that the QN900D panel is actually 240 hz before I see that as more than a gimmic. The AI processing is probably an advantage if you use it as a TV, but since it seems to be disabled in game / PC mode, it does not really add anything for me.

The QN800 has at least before been too limited with regards to backlighting, wide viewing angle layer etc to be an option for me. I recall it has some advantages as well but can't remember what it was now.

 

[BrainEater]

Woop !

The QN900D is ordered, along with a Denon AVRX2800H.
The new Klipsch center/sub are being installed.

TV first, but am working on the computer-receiver link.

 

[improwise]

Woop !

The QN900D is ordered, along with a Denon AVRX2800H.
The new Klipsch center/sub are being installed.

TV first, but am working on the computer-receiver link.

Guessing you might not be planing to use it as a monitor or your aiming for best desk audio ever

 

[BrainEater]

You are correct, it's home theater.
However, being as there is no content, it needs to be an edit monitor too.....(still looking for 8k monitors lol !!!)
I'm working on the link between my video editing rig, and the new tv.
----
I think I have a lot to learn.

 

[Sycraft]

You are correct, it's home theater.
However, being as there is no content, it needs to be an edit monitor too.....(still looking for 8k monitors lol !!!)

ASUS does have an 8k monitor upcoming though they haven't announced a release date yet. It has been shown at trade shows, so it is real and in "getting ready to go" state. The downside is, of course, cost. It is expected to be about 8k dollars . But if you want 8k at monitor sizes with what should be superb HDR, it looks like it'll be the only game in town for a bit.

Guessing you might not be planing to use it as a monitor or your aiming for best desk audio ever

You act like us crazy people haven't done receivers for desktop audio before .

 

[elvn]

ASUS does have an 8k monitor upcoming though they haven't announced a release date yet. It has been shown at trade shows, so it is real and in "getting ready to go" state. The downside is, of course, cost. It is expected to be about 8k dollars . But if you want 8k at monitor sizes with what should be superb HDR, it looks like it'll be the only game in town for a bit.


You act like us crazy people haven't done receivers for desktop audio before .

I hand-me-down my receiver to my pc whenever (very rarely) I upgrade my living room surround receiver. I upgraded to a denon in the living room years ago, so now I have a 7.2 onkyo on my pc. I'm still using a bunch of klipsch 5.1 desktop audio surround speakers from a very old kit back when klipsch made 5.1 promedia audio speakers for pc, plus some extra ones I got from a return issue with the sub/receiver of that kit long ago that happened to allow me to do a full 7.1 audio now. Using an old speakers in a box onkyo wooden 2' tall subwoofer instead of the old klipsch 5.1 sub/amp, with a black hand towel in it's horn (sounds a little better that way).


Otherwise I use a decent set of open can headphones, nothing too crazy, AKG 712Pro, on a usb DAC.

[My living room speakers on the denon are decent but nothing crazy there either. A bunch of ~$200 sets (well, at least way back when I bought them) of Polk bookshelf speakers and also the big polk center channel, towers, and psw505 subwoofer. There are more expensive mid range klipsch sets etc, and other subs that people like, but this sounds pretty decent. Really, the sky is the limit cost wise with audio stuff.]

At my pc, it's very easy to swap audio sources using my stream deck via a source toggle button (which changes the lcd graphic based on what is active at the time for some visual feedback) .. that or I can change audio via a neat pop-up app I use that opens a small right-click like menu... I can pop that up when I hit certain key on my numbpad/mmo mouse, and it also shows a volume slider. I have a drok volume knob though too, which rolls like a dial nicely, but I can hit it like a button to toggle mute/unmute which comes in handy as a panic button if something is very loud or I need to hear something in the house.

I avoided having to upgrade my receiver for eARC by buying a shARC device that adapts eARC to a regular hdmi input on a receiver. With eARC, I don't have to do any "receiver as a ghost monitor" tricks to use hdmi audio at my pc. That would always mess up my window management software with that hidden screen space so I didn't like that method. eARC is way better. Using a gaming tv allows me to use eArc easily too. I think you could run it from any screen in an array though, it wouldn't have to be your primary display. The eARC works with your video card's hdmi sound like a separate sound device/sound-card.

The only real issue I ever had with the receiver near the pc is that my cat used to lay on it, until I cat-proofed it. Onkyo receivers are known to run pretty hot already, even without a cat covering the ventillation slots.


. . .

 

[Sycraft]

I hand-me-down my receiver to my pc whenever (very rarely) I upgrade my living room surround receiver. I upgraded to a denon in the living room years ago, so now I have a 7.2 onkyo on my pc. I'm still using a bunch of klipsch 5.1 desktop audio surround speakers from a very old kit back when klipsch made 5.1 promedia audio speakers for pc, plus some extra ones I got from a return issue with the sub/receiver of that kit long ago that happened to allow me to do a full 7.1 audio now. Using an old speakers in a box onkyo wooden 2' tall subwoofer instead of the old klipsch 5.1 sub/amp, with a black hand towel in it's horn (sounds a little better that way).

I used to do receiver audio, I used an Emotiva XMC-1 hooked to amps hooked to a bunch of SVS M-series speakers. It worked quite well, though I did have to do the second "phantom monitor" thing. That went away when I moved in with my girlfriend, I no longer have room for a whole room-dominating 7.1 setup, and I switched to RME soundcards with headphones most of the time, and Genelec speakers when I want speakers.

The only real issue I ever had with the receiver near the pc is that my cat used to lay on it, until I cat-proofed it. Onkyo receivers are known to run pretty hot already, even without a cat covering the ventillation slots.

I had to do the same. Before I got the XMC-1 I had a Denon that ran pretty hot and my kitty loved to try and block as many of the vents as he could. That finally caused a thermal protection shutdown so I got a rack to put it in. He was beside himself, he wanted back on his warm spot SO BAD.

 

[elvn]

I wired a bunch of silverware forks to the top

 

[BrainEater]

Ah well, Visions tells me 2 weeks still on the 900D. I'm chafing.
----

ASUS does have an 8k monitor upcoming though they haven't announced a release date yet. It has been shown at trade shows, so it is real and in "getting ready to go" state. The downside is, of course, cost. It is expected to be about 8k dollars . But if you want 8k at monitor sizes with what should be superb HDR, it looks like it'll be the only game in town for a bit.


You act like us crazy people haven't done receivers for desktop audio before .

No doubt......Do people still use "computer speakers" ?? ewwww
Here's mine ;



Just need new 8k monitors, looking into those asus ones.

 

[Sycraft]

No doubt......Do people still use "computer speakers" ?? ewwww

Lots do actually, never ceases to amaze me how much people will spend on video and then just ignore audio. Not just computers either. I've seen people with new shiny $5k 85" OLEDs just using the integrated speakers.

Also, I will say that while I don't like computer speakers, I've come around to studio speakers for a desktop setup. When you want speakers up close most HT speakers don't do as good a job, their dispersion isn't really designed for it. I'm a huge fan of Genelec, if you are willing and able to afford them, they are tremendously good at monitor distance away. For something a little more sane on the price the JBL 3 series are extremely good for the cash.

 

[sharknice]

Ah well, Visions tells me 2 weeks still on the 900D. I'm chafing.
----


No doubt......Do people still use "computer speakers" ?? ewwww
Here's mine ;

View attachment 656977

Just need new 8k monitors, looking into those asus ones.

lmao I love this. No tiny computer spakers, not even book shelf speakers, EXTRA LARGE tower speakers right on the desk.

But that can't sound great sitting so close to them.

 

[kasakka]

Lots do actually, never ceases to amaze me how much people will spend on video and then just ignore audio. Not just computers either. I've seen people with new shiny $5k 85" OLEDs just using the integrated speakers.

Also, I will say that while I don't like computer speakers, I've come around to studio speakers for a desktop setup. When you want speakers up close most HT speakers don't do as good a job, their dispersion isn't really designed for it. I'm a huge fan of Genelec, if you are willing and able to afford them, they are tremendously good at monitor distance away. For something a little more sane on the price the JBL 3 series are extremely good for the cash.

Yeah proper, powered studio monitors are generally superior to most hifi stuff when it comes to accuracy, even if things like placement, the room itself will have a big effect on that no matter what. I've got a pair of relatively big Genelec M040 monitors and a small Audient EVO 8 audio interface on my desk.

I have passive Magnat speakers and a 2009 Denon receiver in the living room. When I was last considering replacing it, HDMI 2.1 receivers seemed to have all kinds of issues so I put it on the backburner. I'd love to replace that setup with more Genelecs. Finding a HDMI DAC with room correction and enough outputs that doesn't cost an arm and a leg seems impossible, it's more sensible to buy a big ass receiver and never use its poweramp instead.

One issue I am facing is that I'd like to still pick up the Samsung 57" superultrawide, but raising my speakers above the display is a problem. I have been looking at some pole stands that can be tilted but these Genelecs don't have the same mounting as the 8000 series, plus they are pretty heavy so I worry about wobble.

 

[elvn]

Yeah proper, powered studio monitors are generally superior to most hifi stuff when it comes to accuracy, even if things like placement, the room itself will have a big effect on that no matter what. I've got a pair of relatively big Genelec M040 monitors and a small Audient EVO 8 audio interface on my desk.

I have passive Magnat speakers and a 2009 Denon receiver in the living room. When I was last considering replacing it, HDMI 2.1 receivers seemed to have all kinds of issues so I put it on the backburner. I'd love to replace that setup with more Genelecs. Finding a HDMI DAC with room correction and enough outputs that doesn't cost an arm and a leg seems impossible, it's more sensible to buy a big ass receiver and never use its poweramp instead.

One issue I am facing is that I'd like to still pick up the Samsung 57" superultrawide, but raising my speakers above the display is a problem. I have been looking at some pole stands that can be tilted but these Genelecs don't have the same mounting as the 8000 series, plus they are pretty heavy so I worry about wobble.

you could set it back on a stand and put speakers above pointed down and speakers below pointed up.. aside from cost of twice as many left and right channels.

My klipsch promedia 5.1 (7.1 with my extra speakers from the same set) , has a relatively small center channel so I've always been able to fit the beneath a screen that is on a stand at least. The Promedia speakers are pretty short so as long as my screens are above them I'm good.

They are the same height as in this picture. The center is similar size, (a little longer) sideways.

They produce pretty good sound for their size on a receiver and with a big subwoofer. 60 watts each and 6 ohms impedance. I think they only make a 2.1 setup now though. Luckily I had 10 speakers to play with as long ago they sent me a whole new kit after only asking for the sub/amp in rma process. The sub was the amp as well and they were prone to failure, so a long time ago I just put all the satellites on a receiver and added a different sub.

. . .

I can see that an ultrawide would have to be set up higher than this though when viewed up close, unless you had the desk stop short of the screen and mounted the speakers lower than the screen, or mounted them above. I think those are some kind of logitech speakers.

 

[elvn]

The klipsch reference cinema (and upfiring atmos) system kit's speakers are a lot taller, like bookshelf speakers, but the center could probably fit under a monitor.

Viewing a larger (42", 48", 55" 4k.. maybe 65" 8k) gaming TV screen or array ~ 40" or more away on it's own stand would allow you more flexibility angle wise to put medium-sized speakers above and/or below, compared to sitting up close to a desktop monitor. Could even feasibly use tower speakers under the screen array if it's 3.5 - 4' away from your desk, and your desk is just a flat plane with no backboard.

Edit: I guess klipsch does still make a smaller 5.1 set but it's wireless speakers with battery which I wouldn't be interested in personally.


You could also use something like this on wall pointed down without a stand, and/or on the floor pointed up, alone as your channels or in addition to other speakers on the same channel.

* Those are model: R-41SA. They also make a "horn heavy" version of those angled speakers designed more specifically for performance capability of being atmos ceiling souce/bouncing "elevation" channels (model: R-40SA Dolby Atmos)

 

[Sycraft]

Yeah proper, powered studio monitors are generally superior to most hifi stuff when it comes to accuracy, even if things like placement, the room itself will have a big effect on that no matter what. I've got a pair of relatively big Genelec M040 monitors and a small Audient EVO 8 audio interface on my desk.

True, though that said there are some very accurate HT speakers (the SVS MTS speakers were pretty amazing) and it is easier to get one designed for a large room for not too much money. Most powered monitors are designed for nearfield which is great at the desktop since that's what you are doing, but they often don't work so well in a large space further away, lack of power output mostly. So for HT applications I can see largely sticking with HT speakers. I toy with the idea of studio speakers out in the living room, but they'd end up having to be pretty high end to do a good job. The 8361As should do a great job... at $5k each and the 8381As would be perfect... at $32k/each. I'll probably end up sticking with studio monitors for my computer, and HT speakers for my living room, particularly since it is a crap room setup.

I have passive Magnat speakers and a 2009 Denon receiver in the living room. When I was last considering replacing it, HDMI 2.1 receivers seemed to have all kinds of issues so I put it on the backburner. I'd love to replace that setup with more Genelecs. Finding a HDMI DAC with room correction and enough outputs that doesn't cost an arm and a leg seems impossible, it's more sensible to buy a big ass receiver and never use its poweramp instead.

So there are a couple options out there for a no-power amp (or separate power amp) setup other than just not using the receiver's power amp (which is perfectly valid). On the cheaper end of things are the little devices from MiniDSP like HT and HTx. $600 for the HT, $1000 for the HTx. The can handle audio in via HDMI eARC (the HTx also has analog in). This does mean you need a working eARC setup, which some TVs are better at than others, but if you have that it'll do what you want. They do know how to do Dirac Live, which is bar none the best room correction, but it does cost extra. $250 for a license and you'll also need to add one of their measurement microphones for $75. This is the closest thing to what you want, an HDMI DAC with room correction and it's too stupid expensive, but is still not trivial. Both also support multi-channel input over USB for computers. No Dolby Atmos though.

On the high end, you can get a processor aka prepro. That's basically a receiver without the power amp in it. Ironically, they tend to cost MORE than a receiver, because they are more niche items and usually have better quality hardware in them. The new version of what I used for that is the Emotiva XMC-2 which will run you about $2200 for at 16 channel 9.1.6 capable device that does do Atmos/DTS-X and Dirac Live (all channels). No HDMI 2.1 support though. If you want ones with HDMI 2.1 they are available, but even more expensive. The Arcam AV41 does everything including HDMI 2.1 and can be upgraded for Dirac Bass Control (next level multi-speakers bass processing to deal with room modes) but it $5300. Or in the "completely nuts" category there's the Storm Audio ISP 16 which is again an HDMI 2.1, 16-channel, Dolby Atmos capable processor but this one ups the ante with Dirac Active Room Treatment which is basically advanced wave field tech to not just handle room correction like frequency response, but to deal with things like echos, less than ideal speaker placement, and so on. I've never heard it, but I hear the tech is pretty amazing. The unit of course carries an amazing price tag of $14,000.

 

[kasakka]

So there are a couple options out there for a no-power amp (or separate power amp) setup other than just not using the receiver's power amp (which is perfectly valid). On the cheaper end of things are the little devices from MiniDSP like HT and HTx. $600 for the HT, $1000 for the HTx. The can handle audio in via HDMI eARC (the HTx also has analog in). This does mean you need a working eARC setup, which some TVs are better at than others, but if you have that it'll do what you want. They do know how to do Dirac Live, which is bar none the best room correction, but it does cost extra. $250 for a license and you'll also need to add one of their measurement microphones for $75. This is the closest thing to what you want, an HDMI DAC with room correction and it's too stupid expensive, but is still not trivial. Both also support multi-channel input over USB for computers. No Dolby Atmos though.

On the high end, you can get a processor aka prepro. That's basically a receiver without the power amp in it. Ironically, they tend to cost MORE than a receiver, because they are more niche items and usually have better quality hardware in them. The new version of what I used for that is the Emotiva XMC-2 which will run you about $2200 for at 16 channel 9.1.6 capable device that does do Atmos/DTS-X and Dirac Live (all channels). No HDMI 2.1 support though. If you want ones with HDMI 2.1 they are available, but even more expensive. The Arcam AV41 does everything including HDMI 2.1 and can be upgraded for Dirac Bass Control (next level multi-speakers bass processing to deal with room modes) but it $5300. Or in the "completely nuts" category there's the Storm Audio ISP 16 which is again an HDMI 2.1, 16-channel, Dolby Atmos capable processor but this one ups the ante with Dirac Active Room Treatment which is basically advanced wave field tech to not just handle room correction like frequency response, but to deal with things like echos, less than ideal speaker placement, and so on. I've never heard it, but I hear the tech is pretty amazing. The unit of course carries an amazing price tag of $14,000.

Yeah I've looked into these before and it never makes sense over just buying a regular AV receiver for much less money and dealing with its bulky size.

you could set it back on a stand and put speakers above pointed down and speakers below pointed up.. aside from cost of twice as many left and right channels.

These Genelecs are almost as tall as a 27" display. So the only reasonable option is wall mounting them above the display, tilted down. Unfortunately I live in a rental for a few more years so I'd rather not drill a bunch of holes in the wall so I'm thinking of stand mount options behind my desk.

 

[improwise]

Maybe its time to change the title of this thread to "Where are the 8K Monitors? [No monitor talk]"

 

[elvn]

Maybe its time to change the title of this thread to "Where are the 8K Monitors? [No monitor talk]"

How is your 900C working out? What view distance/viewing angle are you using? How is the sidelong view of the farther areas of the screen if you are sitting relatively near? Gaming impressions (4k 144Hz? necessitates running full screen?).

. .

 

[improwise]

How is your 900C working out? What view distance/viewing angle are you using? How is the sidelong view of the farther areas of the screen if you are sitting relatively near? Gaming impressions (4k 144Hz? necessitates running full screen?).

. .

Well, in short, nothing has really changed. Having benchmarked it against both the 32" QDOLEDs and the Neo G9 57" and sent back both despite them being really good should tell you that I am quite happy with the QN900C as a PC monitor. The idea of going back to multi monitor setup seems unlikely now.

Due to other reasons my setup is still kind of temporary, the plan is to have the QN900 wall mounted behind the desk, but I kind of have it in that position already, not just wall mounted. As mentioned before, as I don't want to use scaling, the distance is the same as would be needed for a 32" 4K without scaling. In my case that is about 75 cm I would guess, with my desk being 60 cm deep but this of course depends on seating position etc.

I still don't use the entire work area, in part because the viewing angles that close might be good enough video etc, but not really for anything text based. This is also because I am a heavy user of Virtual Desktops and as such, I am simply running out of windows to utilize the full 8K area on each

Have not really had time to do that much gaming, but I am mainly using the 32:9 mode of the QN900 to decrease the height, which kind of turns it into a Neo G9 57". It should be mentioned that the max supported resolution for that is 3840x1080 which is then upscaled on the TV. How much of a problem this is probably depends on what GPU you have and what games you play, not like you would really be doing that much high FPS gaming at 8K anyway. One big advantage compared to OLEDs though is brightness - even in SDR it gets so damn bright unless you turn down brightness that something like a flashbang grenade going of is actually painful. Blacklevels are of course no where near OLED, but still surprisingly good. That extra brightness goes a long way of hiding the not as good black levels. I also find that it does a much better job of combining brightness and blacklevels than any Mini LED monitor I have tried. Not really sure how as the zone count etc isn't really all that impressive.

The QN900 kind of reminds me of the 42" OLED C series. Not really the best at anything (well, the QN900 probably is at resolution) but still a really good compromise for something like 80% work and 20% gaming. Assuming you have the need for 8K, the space for a 65" at your desk and of course the funds for it. A heavy gamer would probably be better suited with a 32" 4K OLED, and a more normal office user a 32" 4K IPS.

 

[kasakka]

Have not really had time to do that much gaming, but I am mainly using the 32:9 mode of the QN900 to decrease the height, which kind of turns it into a Neo G9 57". It should be mentioned that the max supported resolution for that is 3840x1080 which is then upscaled on the TV.

Samsung always does this weird shit with resolution support. The display should be able to do 5120x1440 or 7680x2160 no problem, but Samsung probably just didn't program their EDID to do that. Makes me wonder if you could just use CRU or SRE to add those in.

 

[improwise]

Not sure if this is yet another "fake" review, they don't even seem to realize that the QN900D is 240 hz (at least kind of)

https://www.tomsguide.com/tvs/qled-tvs/samsung-qn900d-neo-qled-8k-tv-review

yet another review claiming the panel is 120 hz natively, this time mentioning the 240 hz mode though.

https://www.pocket-lint.com/samsung-qn900d-8k-tv-review/

"As well as delivering superb brightness, the QN900D boasts a native refresh rate of 120Hz, making it compelling for console gamers like myself who want in on seamless action. For the PC gaming inclined, the QN900D offers its "Motion Xcelerator 240Hz" technology, which uses frame interpolation to mimic a 240Hz refresh rate. This feature is limited to 4K resolution, however, and works only with compatible PCs. The new model is well-prepared for gaming technologies to come, as well as offering high performance for the gaming consoles of today."

 

[BrainEater]

tick tock, tick tock,.... *grumble*
/me waits
------------------------
sharknice

They sound fantastic actually. I get room filling sound at really low volume. It's a small room, I tried larger bookshelf speakers, still sucked. Seems counter-intuitive, but I really dig the way it's setup.
------

elvn it won't let me 'like' more than once.
I just purchased the RP504 center speaker and the RP1000 sub. Same room as above, small.
Once again, it's all about good sound at low volume, the sub is at like 2 outta 10 gain. I had to turn everything down with the same receiver, and it sounds waaaaay better. Paul W Klipsch for the win !!

Where's my monitor/TeeVee dammit !

 

[BrainEater]

Wow !


-------

I'm watching the Jays/Indians baseball game right now in native 4k, what a sexy TV !!
They aren't kidding about the 'Infinity edge bezel' ! The bezel is 1mm, with little or no ambient lighting it melts into the wall visually. Very nice.
I did take some phone pics of it in action, but an HD pic from a phone obviously will do no justice to an 8K display, so why bother...I'll take a pic when I get my camera back.



I'll do a bit of a review in a bit as I learn how to use it properly, I certainly have a lot to learn.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Wow !

View attachment 659977
-------

I'm watching the Jays/Indians baseball game right now in native 4k, what a sexy TV !!
They aren't kidding about the 'Infinity edge bezel' ! The bezel is 1mm, with little or no ambient lighting it melts into the wall visually. Very nice.
I did take some phone pics of it in action, but an HD pic from a phone obviously will do no justice to an 8K display, so why bother...I'll take a pic when I get my camera back.



I'll do a bit of a review in a bit as I learn how to use it properly, I certainly have a lot to learn.

She's beautiful!

 

[improwise]

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1...-qn900d-2024-samsungs-best-to-date/index.html

 

[LukeTbk]

Got a 4k 27 inch monitor and sitting close, putting the same 4k video games or 4k movies side by side to a 1440p monitor and the resolution upgrade seem useless to a level not sure I could tell which is which in blindtest scenario of uselessness, face close to it, looking for any difference, even knowing which is which I am not able to tell a difference (could be my eyes obviously).

But for text it is better, so for larger monitor I can imagine that being true for 4k vs 8k, completely useless (4k already was to me) for content but text benefitting.

 

[improwise]

Got a 4k 27 inch monitor and sitting close, putting the same 4k video games or 4k movies side by side to a 1440p monitor and the resolution upgrade seem useless to a level not sure I could tell which is which in blindtest scenario of uselessness, face close to it, looking for any difference, even knowing which is which I am not able to tell a difference (could be my eyes obviously).

But for text it is better, so for larger monitor I can imagine that being true for 4k vs 8k, completely useless (4k already was to me) for content but text benefitting.

If they were running side by side, were they not both running at the resolution of the monitor with the lowest resolution?

 

[LukeTbk]

If they were running side by side, were they not both running at the resolution of the monitor with the lowest resolution?

On windows you can give (in extent monitor mode) each monitor a different resolution and if you launch twice the same game or two VLC players, they can have each their own resolution. 1440p is already a lot of pixels for compressed video and compressed video game texture.

Having an old small 22 inch Acer that does not go over 1600x900 or something connected, if they all went down to it... that would be bad.

 

[improwise]

On windows you can give (in extent monitor mode) each monitor a different resolution and if you launch twice the same game or two VLC players, they can have each their own resolution. 1440p is already a lot of pixels for compressed video and compressed video game texture.

Having an old small 22 inch Acer that does not go over 1600x900 or something connected, if they all went down to it... that would be bad.

Launching the same game twice seems like they would share settings and also like it could seriously affect a side by side comparison. Also there would probably depend on what game it was I guess.

 

[LukeTbk]

Launching the same game twice seems like they would share settings and also like it could seriously affect a side by side comparison. Also there would probably depend on what game it was I guess.

At launch yes, but if go on each instance (in borderless window mode) and change the resolution, I do not see why, for the 3d application I do personally, it is perfectly fine.