55” or 65” TV Screen Size and Your Speakers: Please Join Survey

[TLS Guy]

In part because I wanted to see what kind of speakers many are using with their TVs vs. room size, and how they are placed. While my living room is ~ 2660 cu ft, with a triangular ceiling that peaks at 11 ft, the short wall is only 11 ft and beyond one side of it empties into a long hallway and kitchen beyond that. So, diagonal placement of all A/V hardware is the only way. I don't expect much of a happy ending with any size TV.

There are lots of pictures of peoples rooms and speakers on this site. I'm not sure how to relate TV size and speaker size. In general TV size I think is related to viewing distance more than anything else, and what is practical. I think the type of program you watch also has a bearing on the issue as well and I will expand on that later. You also can not exclude aesthetics. You have in some way to make very large speakers fit into the room and be part of it. So to really max out the AV experience, in my view some room reconstruct is likely to be required. I also think people do impose complex multichannel systems on unsuitable spaces. I have to say I think this is common. We have to remember we got on very well with 2 channel audio being the reference standard for about half a century.

So of you want pictures here as some for what that is worth.

Here is the 7.2.4 AV room.

That room was new construction, but moved from our previous home were there was a room reconstruct. The Atmos was added in the new room.

This room is used mainly for concerts and opera, and CDs, BDs LPs and tapes. It is used for some movies and TV programs. The screen size is on the small size, but audio quality is prime in this room. It is wired for a PJ and screen, but I have never installed them. I worried it would adversely affect the center speaker. In addition with Atmos now so improved that instrumentalist are locked in position including depth and there is often a disconcerting disconnect between picture image and sound image. I have a feeling a larger screen would make this much worse.

This is my 3.1 room.

I would not remotely consider imposing more than 3.1 on that room. It is used mainly for TV watching both traditional and streamed. My wife uses this a lot. To be honest you can not easily tell the difference between 2.1 or 3.1. My wife insists there is no difference. I just wanted the challenge of designing a 3 way center channel. In two channel even when way off center the center image is still stable and centered in two channel listening.

Now the 2.1 system in the family room.

I really like this system. I really enjoy those speakers, and they actually have enough bass extension that the subs add little. The LF driver is one of my favorite drivers of all time. The KEF B139. Falcon acoustics have them in production and have increased power handling to 200 watts, although my drivers are KEF originals. Falcon have kept the T/S parameters identical. The mids are the NLA Dynaudio D76 domes.
The only comparable high powered mid domes are the ATC dome and the Volt domes. These cover the speech discrimination band at power. The Volt domes have recently become available in the US from Madisound.
I love this system and like to do some serious listening fireside in the winter.

So it comes down to making the best of what you have. But I don't think you should let your space control the quality of your speakers. Better speakers will sound better then poorer ones whatever the space. In fact my experience is that the better the speakers, the less they are impacted by shortcomings of the space, and there are good reasons for that.

 

[Eppie]

In part because I wanted to see what kind of speakers many are using with their TVs vs. room size, and how they are placed. While my living room is ~ 2660 cu ft, with a triangular ceiling that peaks at 11 ft, the short wall is only 11 ft and beyond one side of it empties into a long hallway and kitchen beyond that. So, diagonal placement of all A/V hardware is the only way. I don't expect much of a happy ending with any size TV.

There is a forum section titled "Pros and Joes Systems Gallery".

 

[oltos]

In general TV size I think is related to viewing distance more than anything else, and what is practical. I think the type of program you watch also has a bearing on the issue as well and I will expand on that later. You also can not exclude aesthetics. You have in some way to make very large speakers fit into the room and be part of it.

So it comes down to making the best of what you have. But I don't think you should let your space control the quality of your speakers. Better speakers will sound better then poorer ones whatever the space. In fact my experience is that the better the speakers, the less they are impacted by shortcomings of the space, and there are good reasons for that.

If I could and would prefer (at least initially) to use my large speakers with the TV for 2.1 audio, the TV would have to be at least 6 inches to a foot behind the horns, which will put the TV about 11 ft from me-fine for a 65" but possibly not so for viewing the 55". But audio quality for music listening is always the priority, and I've spent too much money and time developing these speakers to let optimal TV size, much less aesthetics, compromise audio realism. I almost certainly cannot have both, as I am confined to a stifling 1100 sq ft co-op at least until I retire. Nor would I ever do any room reconstruction on a living room this small, even if the co-op board allowed it. I'll just have to see how lucky I get this weekend when placing the mock 55" 11 ft away and diagonally across the room.

 

[-Jim-]

For me it has always been my 32" Toshiba CRT TV ten feet away in my bedroom. Of course, there will be a worlds of difference going not only from a 32" to a 55" TV, but from 4:3 to a 16:9 native aspect ratio screen.

Sadly, no matter what, the living room's size and my speakers and subs footprint make a 65" only possible if I place them all on one big diagonal line across my living room. Who here would want that?

You have now lost credibility on this Forum with many members by posting a bogus topic /thread. You wasted the efforts of folks who were only trying to help out a member. Sad to be like that.

 

[Wardog555]

When I watch TV being that close I focus on the middle of the screen. It's rare that I need to move my eyes around.
People just don't seem to get it.
How many people here have tried a 50 degree viewing angle? I bet not many.

 

[oltos]

I watch 4.6 feet from a 65 inch.
10 feet is too far from a 65 inch and I'd take a 75 at the smallest. While 130 inches would be for maximum viewing immersion.

It boggles my mind that someone thinks a 65 at 12 feet is immersive when it's the direct opposite.
You need to try out 5 feet and under to the get the real immersion.

............
When I watch TV being that close I focus on the middle of the screen. It's rare that I need to move my eyes around.
People just don't seem to get it.
How many people here have tried a 50 degree viewing angle? I bet not many.

To help on tv size see these.
65 inch. https://phfx.com/tools/optimalViewing/ov.cgi?d=65&u=i&ar=16:9&fm=c&cfov=&cd=&cdu=i

77 inch. https://phfx.com/tools/optimalViewing/ov.cgi?d=77&u=i&ar=16:9&fm=c&cfov=&cd=&cdu=i

Thanks to all for sharing your TV size experiences with me. Like I did with the 65” mock last weekend, this Saturday night I finished the 55” mock, precisely cut to 1/8” of the Sony A95L specs. I spent lots of time placing them in various locations and distances in the room. I’ve narrowed my chosen locations down to two.

One last question: Whether I go with the 55” or 65” I would want the screen to be between 13.5 and 14 ft from my eyes, with the TV between my floor standing speakers and the speakers 10 to 11 ft from me.

At that distance and looking at the center of the 55” mock the entire screen falls within the full viewing area of my eyes. But this isn’t so with the 65” mock. Because of this difference I wondering how my eyes would react while watching moving or even stable images on a 65” TV. Wouldn’t they be compelled to hunt across the screen a lot more than they would with the 55” screen?

Indeed, for those of you who sit between ~ 8 ft to 11 ft from a 65” or 77” screen, do find your eyes get especially tired from hunting for aspects of images while viewing a screen that big and from that distance? OTOH, everyone’s eyes must zoom around the huge screen in movie cinemas, though I haven’t been in one for many years, nor probably will again, in part for this reason.

But again, don’t you guys get some kind of eyestrain if or because your field of vision is overshot by your > 55” or > 65” screen size?

I ask this because of this supremely relevant post by Dave in Green:

THX recommends a “best seat-to-screen distance” FOV of 40 degrees. But that's based on averages where some prefer greater and some less. An FOV of 50 degrees is more like front row seating at a commercial cinema. Some people prefer that level of immersion while others don't. It would be best to experiment by viewing content with a 50 degree FOV before locking into it as it will create a lot of eye movement that could get tiring when viewing fast moving action content depending on your individual tolerance.
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/would-50-degrees-horizontal-viewing-angle-be-too-much.3006084/

Clearly, screen size vs. viewing distance is largely a matter of 1.) How visually immersed one cares to be and 2.) what kind of content one typically views. For sure, if I were a gamer and/or a big fan of “action” movies, I very likely would get eye fatigue or even headaches with a 65” screen-even at 13 ft. But save for a James Bond film now and then, I’m mostly a fan of film noir genre and other classic and new but fairly slow-moving TV shows and movies. Furthermore, I keep my living room dimly lit, at least for TV viewing, so there may therefore be less risk of eyestrain.

Given these facts, I’ll be ordering the 65” Sony A95L this week at Best Buy. I can always exchange it for the 55” within the 10-day trial period, but thanks to Dave in Green’s presenting of those crucial facts, after some hours viewing of various BDs from my collection there’s at least a 50% chance that the 65” will be the one.

 

[oltos]

Okay, the 65" it will be, though not without issues.

It’s probably laughable to those here but I don’t subscribe to any streaming or even basic cable service. I get news via internet, NY Times, et al.

Except for free services like Kanopy, all my movie and vintage TV show content are from Youtube, but mostly from my own collection of 2K BDs and DVDs and those borrowed from local public libraries.

Being a huge film noir fan, OLED is the only way, and everyone also says Sony has the best upscaling for DVDs, which is essential as many of my favorite titles will clearly never see a BD release. So even though I will rarely be viewing 4K content the A95L still seems justifiable.

Where problems lie are with viewing distance. I want to keep my ~ 26” wide Troy Crowe floor standing main speakers 10 ft from me, which means that the TV must be at least a foot behind the front of them.

Would 11 to 12 ft be too far to enjoy my non-4K content?

FWIW, I keep my room dimly lit and will therefore be dialing down the TV brightness.

Note that a 77” TV is not doable since as its width would make proper speaker placement impossible, which will already be challenged by the 65” TV’s footprint.

If only I had more space this would have been the one.
https://electronics.sony.com/tv-video/televisions/all-tvs/p/xr77a80l