Hi, I tested and sent back an LG 24MB56HQ-B for 135,-€ and bought an EIZO EV2450 for 300,-. I'm testing it since 5 days. Until now I handled it with kid gloves, just office work, no raw music work, IOW no accidents, cleaned from dust using a brand-new microfibre cloth for glasses. For some unknown reason the display already has got an around 2 cm long scratch that is visible by direct sunlight. Nothing happened and it's already damaged. I wonder what happens to the display when it gets seriously used. In all the years I never damaged an iPad display or CRT screens, even not by raw usage or accidents and the LCD's display is already damaged after 5 days of usage with kid gloves. The mains plug connector plugged into the monitor doesn't fit tightly. EIZO support sent me a replacement cable with a different kettle plug, but the kettle plug still doesn't fit better. The image quality for pictures is superb, but font rendering is still a PITA. Not only related to the font issue, the LCD monitor does cause much more straining than a CRT. It's still like looking at a screen tone. If I compare the CRT and the LCD I don't miss anything for the CRT, excepted of the aspect ratio the LCD display provides. Indeed, the image quality regarding colours and sharpness is better for the LCD display, but the CRT doesn't cause straining and even weak font rendering is less unpleasant. Btw. the cheaper LG monitor provided an option to blurry the image, the more expensive EIZO doesn't provide such an option. Regarding videos I never noticed screen tearing on a regular basis before. This seems to be unique for LCDs. The EIZO might provide options related to video I didn't discovered yet. The aspect ratio of the LCD is already nice for office work and writing scripts, so without doubts it will improve Ardour usage a lot, too. The LCD also doesn't suffer from direct sunlight as much as a CRT. For watching photos, the image quality most often is better than of a CRT, there are just issues with thin lines, font rendering and things like that, making the CRT the better choice. However, eye straining (not only regarding fonts), for some users perhaps screen tearing (I don't care about screen tearing at the moment) and the easily to hurt display are serious issues. If I wouldn't need 16:9, I would stay with CRTs. Regards, Ralf PS: The syslinux bootloader is a PITA for my dualhead setup. Usually I turn of the secondary monitor, but let the secondary monitor connected, even if it's unused. The BIOS displays the same on both monitors, but syslinux displays the menu only on the secondary monitor, as long as it is connected, even if it's turned off.