MSI MAG 271QPX 1440p 360hz 8bpc w/ no dsc?

[rippy4500]

I want to get the MSI MAG 271QPX which does 1440p 360hz. I watched Monitors Unboxed review on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgtzP5Xs1aI) and he said both HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 can do 360Hz 10BPC HDR but it requires DSC, but didn't say anything about if I could avoid DSC by using 8BPC w/ no HDR which is how I normally use my monitors. HDMI 2.1 should have enough bandwidth for that, but the main thing im worried about is if the firmware is picky and doesn't accept running it like that so that's why im asking this.

Id be fine with DSC but obviously prefer without it cause it still adds some quality loss and latency, even though I understand it should be indistinguishable 99% of the time.

[Stahlmann]

No, it's actually indistinguishable 100% of the time. It is a visually lossless compression format, meaning you will not be able to spot a difference, no matter how hard you try. And all the latency measurements Monitors Unboxed is doing are at the highest available resolution, refresh rate and bit depth, so in this case it was while running DSC. The input lag is already the best on the chart, so other than maybe compatibility with older GPUs, I don't know what you're chasing here. My guess is that you're just overthinking it.

 

And if you have a GPU that's old enough to lack DSC support, then I don't know why you're looking at 1440p 360Hz monitors to begin with...

 

I don't know where people keep getting the idea that any form of compression is automatically bad.

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

No, it's actually indistinguishable 100% of the time. It is a visually lossless compression format, meaning you will not be able to spot a difference, no matter how hard you try. And all the latency measurements Monitors Unboxed is doing are at the highest available resolution, refresh rate and bit depth, so in this case it was while running DSC. The input lag is already the best on the chart, so other than maybe compatibility with older GPUs, I don't know what you're chasing here. My guess is that you're just overthinking it.

I understand that its indistinguishable, but its still technically lossy. So thats why I said id be fine with it but still prefer it off if possible, it probably won't change my monitor buying decsion but I was still curious about it.

 

And Im using a 4090 so yes it does support it.

[GuiltySpark_]

I’m seeing this a lot recently, are people this unfamiliar with DSC? It’s not exactly new. Visually lossless is visually lossless. This means you don’t have to think about it and it just does its thing. Off or on I can’t understand why it matters. 

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I’m seeing this a lot recently, are people this unfamiliar with DSC? It’s not exactly new. Visually lossless is visually lossless. This means you don’t have to think about it and it just does its thing. Off or on I can’t understand why it matters. 

Because visually lossless does not mean true lossless. And some people like me just really don't like the idea of lossy compression in any form especially when uncompressed has been the standard for so long.

 

Maybe im just being too picky but that's just how I feel about it, it feels like a band aid solution cause they don't want to bother upgrading the connectors on devices to DP 2.0.

[OddOod]

DSC is described thus on wiki:

"Although DSC is mathematically lossy, it meets the ISO/IEC 29170 standard for "visually lossless" compression, a form of compression in which "the user cannot tell the difference between a compressed and uncompressed image"

 

The full technical description can be seen here
https://www.vesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/VESA_DSC-ETP200.pdf

 

9 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

Maybe im just being too picky

You are

 

9 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

uncompressed has been the standard for so long

Given that the VAST majority of content that you are viewing on the monitor has been through some sort of compression, I'm not sure exactly what standard you are referring to
 

[Stahlmann]

32 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

Because visually lossless does not mean true lossless. And some people like me just really don't like the idea of lossy compression in any form especially when uncompressed has been the standard for so long.

 

Maybe im just being too picky but that's just how I feel about it, it feels like a band aid solution cause they don't want to bother upgrading the connectors on devices to DP 2.0.

It's the same argument I see from audiophiles all the time. In the end, you have to ask yourself: is it really important if it actually doesn't make a difference?

 

It's not a band-aid solution to a temporary problem. And even with DP 2.0 or HDMI 2.1 monitors or GPUs it will still be used because next generation displays are already requiring a higher data rate than what these connectors natively support.

 

The first 4K 240Hz Dolby Vision monitor has just released. Dolby Vision calls for 12 bit color in it's spec, so we're already exceeding DP 2.0 bandwidth (again). I don't think that Dell monitor supports 12 bit color, but future monitors that actually get official Dolby Vision certifications will need to.

 

 

 

If your monitor has any kind of artifacts, it's not because it's using DSC. It's because it's broken.

[rippy4500]

57 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

It's the same argument I see from audiophiles all the time. In the end, you have to ask yourself: is it really important if it actually doesn't make a difference?

 

It's not a band-aid solution to a temporary problem. And even with DP 2.0 or HDMI 2.1 monitors or GPUs it will still be used because next generation displays are already requiring a higher data rate than what these connectors natively support.

 

The first 4K 240Hz Dolby Vision monitor has just released. Dolby Vision calls for 12 bit color in it's spec, so we're already exceeding DP 2.0 bandwidth (again). I don't think that Dell monitor supports 12 bit color, but future monitors that actually get official Dolby Vision certifications will need to.

 

 

 

If your monitor has any kind of artifacts, it's not because it's using DSC. It's because it's broken.

How often are people actually using things like dolby vision though? Ive never met somebody in person or online that actually uses that or any similar technology.

For people like me that use standard 8bpc or maybe 10bpc hdr (ive only turned it on like once), DP 2.1 is way more than enough and should solve these problems.

And audio is a completely different discussion.

[rippy4500]

1 hour ago, OddOod said:

I'm not sure exactly what standard you are referring to

Games, UI, basically anything that is rendered locally and not a video or something.

[Stahlmann]

17 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

How often are people actually using things like dolby vision though? Ive never met somebody in person or online that actually uses that or any similar technology.

For people like me that use standard 8bpc or maybe 10bpc hdr (ive only turned it on like once), DP 2.1 is way more than enough and should solve these problems.

And audio is a completely different discussion.

Dolby Vision isn't the standard yet, in fact it's brand new to monitors or PCs in general. But like HDR, it will slowly gain popularity over time. On the TV side of HDR technology, Dolby Vision is already well established and supported across a wide range of content and streaming services but still needs higher-end TVs for proper hardware-level support.

 

It's a similar discussion with audio. People want to go lossless even though most, if not all, of the compression is in the high frequency range where humans can't even hear it, especially when natural hearing loss is taken into account. Take an ABX test and be honest with yourself. You will probably not even be able to hear a difference between lossless FLAC files and compressed MP3. Every time I bring this up to audiophiles they come back with frequency analisys graphs and stuff like that, but they can't actually describe what the MP3 variant lacks. Same with DSC or uncompressed but with the difference that DSC is actually visually lossless and with MP3 no such claims exist.

 

Again, what problems are you trying to solve? That's my point.

 

What makes you so sure that uncompressed video would be an advantage?

What makes you think the current solution is bad?

Do you have any issues with DSC other than the fact that it's compression?

[rippy4500]

30 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

It's a similar discussion with audio. People want to go lossless even though most, if not all, of the compression is in the high frequency range where humans can't even hear it, especially when natural hearing loss is taken into account. Take an ABX test and be honest with yourself. You will probably not even be able to hear a difference between lossless FLAC files and compressed MP3. Every time I bring this up to audiophiles they come back with frequency analisys graphs and stuff like that, but they can't actually describe what the MP3 variant lacks. Same with DSC or uncompressed but with the difference that DSC is actually visually lossless and with MP3 no such claims exist.

I can hear 16/44.1 flac vs 320K mp3, I use Qobuz for music which has both options and I can AB it. Switching to 320K immediately sounds ever so slightly different. The most obvious difference is that separation is slightly worse, meaning busy areas of a song with lots of instruments sound more congested and less detailed. I can hear because I know what to listen for and I have detailed enough headphones to tell with my desktop audio setup.
More importantly the discussion of file size is becoming less and less relevant as modern devices have so much storage and access to fast internet that streaming/downloading lossless isn't an issue 99% of the time. I can stream 24/192 flac on my phone with my base teir cell data plan without problems. Can I tell the difference using the ~$100 iems and $10 apple dongle I use for mobile listening? Probably not. Especially since the apple dongle only supports 24/48 anyway IIRC, but I use it anyway cause it never has a problem playing it.

30 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Do you have any issues with DSC other than the fact that it's compression?

To be honest its probably just that and im just arguing based on a crap point. But im just a perfectionist when it comes to this type of thing where I want the most perfect/unaltered experience possible.

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

I can hear 16/44.1 flac vs 320K mp3, I use Qobuz for music which has both options and I can AB it. Switching to 320K immediately sounds ever so slightly different. The most obvious difference is that separation is slightly worse, meaning busy areas of a song with lots of instruments sound more congested and less detailed. I can hear because I know what to listen for and I have detailed enough headphones to tell.
More importantly the discussion of file size is becoming less and less relevant as modern devices have so much storage and access to fast internet that streaming/downloading lossless isn't an issue 99% of the time. I can stream 24/192 flac on my phone with my base teir cell data plan without problems. Can I tell the difference using the ~$100 iems and $10 apple dongle I use for mobile listening? Probably not, but I use it anyway cause it never has a problem playing it.

I don't really feel like diving in there about the audio stuff, I only brought it up because it's a similar discussion.

 

4 minutes ago, rippy4500 said:

To be honest its probably just that and im just arguing based on a crap point. But im just a perfectionist when it comes to this type of thing where I want the most perfect/unaltered experience possible.

With DSC you really are getting the full experience. There have been people trying to spot any differences and they found nothing. Getting rid of DSC in your pipeline won't change anything about your experience. The slight inaccuracities every single monitor has are more impactful that the use of DSC.

[rippy4500]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't really feel like diving in there about the audio stuff, I only brought it up because it's a similar discussion.

I only ever talk about it on separate audio dedicated forum websites, I get much better advice and whatnot there.

2 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

With DSC you really are getting the full experience. There have been people trying to spot any differences and they found nothing. Getting rid of DSC in your pipeline won't change anything about your experience. The slight inaccuracities every single monitor has are more impactful that the use of DSC.

I just want the peace of mind knowing that the data going to my monitor is unaltered and therefore exactly what it's supposed to be. Maybe you're right that I won't be able to tell, but ill still prefer it off all else equal just cause I know the fact it's still technically not the same even if it's incredibly close.

[Stahlmann]

Just now, rippy4500 said:

I just want the peace of mind knowing that the data going to my monitor is unaltered and therefore exactly what it's supposed to be. Maybe you're right that I won't be able to tell, but ill still prefer it off all else equal just cause I know the fact it's still technically not the same even if it's incredibly close.

If you spend all your time looking for a way to make everything perfect, you're going to suck all the joy out of it. I've found it's similar with music.

 

I was also very insistent on accurate monitors, and I still am to some extent. But over time I came to understand that many people actively dislike the way a more accurate display looks. Being perfect isn't important in most cases. Being good enough to not actively detract from the experience is much more important.

 

Striving for perfection means you'll never be happy with the result, because there's no end to it. There are dozens of factors that change the way you see an image on your particular monitor compared to how the game developer sees it. Just like there are dozens of factors that change the way music sounds to you versus how it sounded in the recording studio.

 

And DSC isn't one of these factors.

[rippy4500]

11 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

If you spend all your time looking for a way to make everything perfect, you're going to suck all the joy out of it. I've found it's similar with music.

 

I was also very insistent on accurate monitors, and I still am to some extent. But over time I came to understand that many people actively dislike the way a more accurate display looks. Being perfect isn't important in most cases. Being good enough to not actively detract from the experience is much more important.

 

Striving for perfection means you'll never be happy with the result, because there's no end to it. There are dozens of factors that change the way you see an image on your particular monitor compared to how the game developer sees it. Just like there are dozens of factors that change the way music sounds to you versus how it sounded in the recording studio.

 

And DSC isn't one of these factors.

I actually just ordered the monitor and tbh im probably not gonna complain much if I gotta use dsc for the full refresh rate. While I said that id prefer without it, I don't care that much if I do end up having to use it. That is the point im trying to get across, it's a preference not a requirement.