what resolution is STM2448 supposed to be optimized for?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri May 14, 2004 4:56 am

I just got me a second monitor, running in 1600x1200... but I still find the STM2448 mixer quite big (wide) and quite non standard sized.

When I have 24 tracks showing, there's too little space to show the master strip. When I have 16 tracks showing, there's space left over. Also, there's no good way to make the windows stick to the edge of the screen, or the windows don't stick to each other's edges. (like winamp) It's really a cosmetic detail, but would go a long ways into making the mixer more ergonomic I thought. I find myself constantly shifting windows.. feeling that they just don't "sit" well anywhere.

Another opinion is that since many people go for dual LCD setups these days, there is no way the STM2448 showing 24 channels accross is going to fit on a standard 1280x1024 LCD monitor. Meaning, if anyone were to create a mixer that's optimized for a certain resolution, it's better if you optimized for standard 1280x1024 resolution.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Post by **hubird** » Fri May 14, 2004 6:32 am

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Fri May 14, 2004 7:32 am

Remember all the promo leaflets for scope fusion platform before it came out a few years back?

They illustrated SFP running on a Mac with Widescreen displays.

Maybe they were designed with those screens in mind.

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri May 14, 2004 9:02 am

Personally I can't remember the last time I used anything but micromixer.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:21 am

Where is that micromixer valis?

7XL · Post by **7XL** » Fri May 14, 2004 10:41 am

I find that 1792 x 1344works great on my dual monitor set up.

I can get the 2448 and the master section side by side and there's still plenty of screen left for plugin and misc stuff.

Now I'm sure that somebody is going to come in here and call me stupid, dull, angry or something, it just seems to be the way things go whenever anybody post an opinion around here.

valis · Post by **valis** » Fri May 14, 2004 11:43 am

Its part of Mixer Package I

http://www.creamware.de/en/Products/sof ... efault.asp

Anything that can be done in the larger mixers is still perfectly possible here, only do it in SFP not inside the mixer. Inserts/sends/grouping stuff into busses by using multiple micromixers etc.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:36 pm

Thanks Valis

Post by **hubird** » Fri May 14, 2004 12:42 pm

I have always just 8 channels visible along with the master mixer plus selected channel.
So with one, two or three clicks on the right-left arrows you have it all under hands, including the busses.
Around that I have the Cubase master mixer and eventual Cubase edit windows and thelike.
On my right monitor i have the Cubase arrange window.

one 17", one 20" Sony monitor, both on 1280 * 1024.
With two platforms active you need two monitors I'd say

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2004-05-14 13:43 ]

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri May 14, 2004 1:43 pm

I find that 1792 x 1344works great on my dual monitor set up.

I can get the 2448 and the master section side by side and there's still plenty of screen left for plugin and misc stuff.

Now I'm sure that somebody is going to come in here and call me stupid, dull, angry or something, it just seems to be the way things go whenever anybody post an opinion around here.

hey man.. it's okay.

On the other hand, wow, 1792 x 1344 is pretty high up there.

About the widescreen mac monitors.. that makes more sense. Anyway, I was thinking it would be neat idea to have the mixer optimized for a certain resolution, so that I can leave on my second monitor and not worry about shifting its position around all the time. I didn't think anything of it 'till I got my second monitor. Cuz I can use the second monitor as a permanent interface for the SCOPE mixer.

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Fri May 14, 2004 2:23 pm

Found it, mmm, they don't look widescreen.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri May 14, 2004 3:48 pm

aahhh the apple 17" Studio Displays 1280 x 1024
we have them in the office and though they were awefully expensive once - I guess the horizontal resolution in Euro

we didn't regret.

Imho the 1280 resolution is more pleasing to the eye because wider displays are more sensitive to color shading due to an increased viewing angle, so better 2 of those than 1 big.

The ones on the pic above have a totally even color response while my 500 Euro Iiyama at home has noticable shading.

cheers, Tom

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Sat May 15, 2004 5:07 am

.....Now I'm sure that somebody is going to come in here and call me stupid, dull, angry or something, it just seems to be the way things go whenever anybody post an opinion around here.....

Probably because you post comments like the above? You are not a 12 yr old child I presume?

But yes, for the 21" CRT monitors I'm using
the recommended 1280x1024 res still doesn't seem to be enough for the stm2448. Who knows what the developers are using?

7XL · Post by **7XL** » Sun May 16, 2004 7:05 pm

bassdude, no I'm not a 12 year old child, but if you look back at some of the rerplies to some of my post, you would wonder about some of the others here.

But anyway, what 21" monitor are you using that has a recommended resolution of 1280 x1024? My Viewsonic has a recommended of 1600 x 1200 and is capable of going up to 2048 x 1536. Although My old one (Viewsonic replaced my original monitor under warranty in about a week) was only capable of 1600 x1200, but you could overclock the graphics card and get up to 1920 x 1440.

So I was wondering if you've tried to overclock your your graphics card to get a higer resolution? Or maybe you're just happy with it the way it is.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:30 am

On 2004-05-16 20:05, 7XL wrote:
bassdude, no I'm not a 12 year old child, but if you look back at some of the rerplies to some of my post, you would wonder about some of the others here.

maybe you should consider toning it down a little bit when commenting on "the way things go around here". With only 19 posts so far you're not exactly a veteran here

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2004-05-17 11:31 ]

Tony B · Post by **Tony B** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:24 pm

HHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Mon May 17, 2004 1:36 pm

okay guys... Let's try to being forgiving. (for both parties) Let's stop while it's still all fun 'n games.

But anyway, what 21" monitor are you using that has a recommended resolution of 1280 x1024? My Viewsonic has a recommended of 1600 x 1200 and is capable of going up to 2048 x 1536. Although My old one (Viewsonic replaced my original monitor under warranty in about a week) was only capable of 1600 x1200, but you could overclock the graphics card and get up to 1920 x 1440.

Well, I was thinking more in terms of an LCD display, which only goes up to 1280x1024. I'll be switching to dual LCD soon I think, so I was kind of worried about the whole resolution bit. I mean, everyone's going to go LCD sooner or later don't you think? CRT monitors are just too HUGE!

On a side note, I think there's going to be something like a dual density XGA super mega dot-pitch whatever LCD coming out soon, with like twice the resolution of current LCD displays. I saw a dude in Japan with a notebook that had it, and the resolution was just insane. Talk about crispy waveforms. lol + a little drool, but it's going to be dead expensive when they come out anyway.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-05-17 14:46 ]

7XL · Post by **7XL** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:44 pm

kensuguro,

Depending on how much you want to spend, you can get LCD's that go up to 1600 x 1200 and beyond. At our studio (http://www.americanguitarboutique.com/studio.html )we have 2 x 23.1" Viewsonic LCD monitors (VP230mb) and running a system with the STM 4896. The 24 channel strips fit across the screen quite nicely but the master section "get in the way" if you notice in the picture it does get a little crowded when we start adding plugins and the like (maybe a third monitor isn't such a bad idea).

That's one of the reasons that at my home studio I use CRT's, because I can get past the 1600 x 1200 limit and have it not cost me an arm and a leg (although all these CRT's do generate a little heat). Also there are some smaller LCD's that will get up to 1600 x 1200, I'm just not sure of the quality. another option in the LCD range is a wide screen, but once again I'm not to sure that you will find any that will go any higher that 1600 if they even go that high.

Post by **garyb** » Tue May 18, 2004 12:35 am

agree.

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Fri May 21, 2004 6:26 pm

So I was wondering if you've tried to overclock your your graphics card to get a higer resolution? Or maybe you're just happy with it the way it is.

Yes, because to go higher the font size starts to become too small even on a 21" CRT screen. So, IMO, 1280 x 1024 would be the recommended res for a 21" (on a 21" LCD it would be a different story). Similarly 1024 X 768 seems best for a 17" CRT screen although you can go higher.