Im thinking of upgrading to a 1600x1200 LCD, But 16ms is the lowest latency

[dubbyah]

So ive decided to upgrade to LCD, only one with 1600x1200 resolution though, and my absolute price limit is 500..

Ive noticed that 1280 resolution monitors all have 12 ms (usually), and the 1600x1200 ones that arent over a thousand dollars, the lowest is 16ms.

I work with audio alot, and in audio latency, even 10MS Is quite noticable.. 16ms is really noticable


im really worried about 16ms and if it will mess things up, espesially in games! I want 1600x1200, but if 16ms is noticable and makes a difference I think im screwed and will have to get either a crt with 1600x1200, or a 1280 LCD with 12ms latency...

What are your guys opinions on the matter? Are there any sub500 1600x1200 LCDs with 12ms? In reviews of 16ms people say its definately noticable.. im very dissapointed, cause the main reason I want a LCD is because of the sharper image and a higher resolution then my current 1028 CRT...

thanks alot for the advice

 

[Chill_00]

Best advice I can give is to NOT TRUST SPECS! Check out reviews (especially user reviews) but even those you cannot follow blindly.

And 12-16ms is fine for most people, and depending on the panel those numbers are not really accurate.

 

[kyaku00x]

I have two screens sitting in front of me now, one is lg l2010p (1600x1200, 16ms), and the other is an acer al1715 (1280x1024, 12ms). i tested them with the PixPer program (you know, "i need more socks" one), and they were completely equal, i even could read things better on the lg. even in games, both are completely the same. I think that you have to go below 8ms to see any change.