Ideal TV size for bedroom?

Discussion in 'Technology' started by cmdrmonkey, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. What would you guys say is a good size TV for a bedroom? I'm currently using an ancient 32" Samsung LN3251D from 2006 that is wall mounted. The wall is only a couple of feet from the end of the bed so I'm pretty close to the TV. Looking to replace the Samsung with something bigger and more modern. Budget is under $500. Was thinking of a 42" or 43" TV, but most of the recommended TVs these days are gigantic. It seems like the average TV size these days is 55". I'm thinking something that size would be way too big in a bedroom.
  2. 32" - grey area
    38" - 42" is probably ideal for most people
    48" - grey area

    The problem with going too big is large TVs will easily illuminate most bedrooms. The problem is worse when mounted high on a wall. I'd steer clear of 55" for this reason alone, it's very annoying if only one person is watching while the other tries to sleep.
  3. Kind of what I was thinking. There seems to be a push for gigantic TVs everywhere, with TVs under 50" mostly being phased out with the exception of 32" TVs. The problem is that's just too big for a bedroom. I have a 52" TV in my living room, and even out there it's gigantic. I don't think I would want something that size in the bedroom. The whole wall would be screen, and it would be obnoxious when one person is trying to sleep and one is trying to watch TV.
  4. Yeah, smaller TV's do seem like they are being phased out. The good news is you can typically find a 42" for $200 nowadays... maybe name brand for only $300.

    Actually, it looks impossible to find a regular LCD TV... they have all these useless internet capable features nobody wants. I'd rather use a HP Mini every time.
  5. I have a 32" and I think if it was any bigger my bedroom wouldn't feel like a bedroom. It almost never gets used anyway. If I want to watch TV in bed I just use a tablet and headphones. Pretty much they only time the TV gets turned on is when I'm cleaning or watching Sunday Football.

    But supersonic is right. 4K is in and 1080p 60 Hz TVs are being dumped for $200 to $300. Of course a small OLED TV in a pitch black bedroom would be pretty cool.
  6. I guess it's a weird time to buy a TV. 4K is here, but I don't think it's caught on in a big way yet. 1080p is on its way out and they aren't putting much effort into 1080p TVs these days. Agree that Smart TV functionality on these things is crap compared to an HTPC, but they pretty much all have it.
  7. The Roku 3 has a very useful feature for late night TV watching in the bedroom. Plug the headphones into the remote and only that person hears the TV.

  8. We got a new 32" LCD for our bedroom; don't think any bigger would be a great idea as that's plenty bright and big enough. I don't mind the smart technology; has meant I've not needed a separate box for Netflix, now TV and amazon.
  9. Went with a 40 inch LG 1080p 120hz TV with WebOS. Supposedly WebOS is supposed to be somewhat less useless than other Smart TV software. Maybe LG finally found a use for it after Palm and HP couldn't make a go of it. If it works well would be nice to cut down on clutter and just have a tv and a cable box. People in other forums were recommending 48"+ TVs, but I just think that's too large for a bedroom. Also 40ish inch 1080p TVs have gotten dirt cheap compared to a few years ago.
  10. The problem with any smart TV is that the smarts aren't upgradable. In the next 5 years Apple, Roku, Amazon, Google and whoever else will upgraded their dedicated hardware several times. My Samsung had one of the best interfaces when it came out 7? years ago and it became worthless a few years back. The TV itself still looks great though.
  11. Yeah I agree. People generally buy TVs for the long haul, often 10+ years. So invariably any Smart TV functionality is going to become out of date and irrelevant during the life of the TV. It seems more like a nice bonus if it's not total crap and doesn't add much to the cost of the TV rather than a real selling point.

    I had bought the cheaper 60hz 42" LG 2015 model a few days ago, but it arrived broken, and I was also unimpressed with the build quality and felt like it was slightly too big for the space, so I stepped up to the nicer but slightly smaller 40" 120hz model. WebOS and the wiimote like thing it uses were just a bonus. I have a Brix HTPC so I don't know how much I'll use it, especially if it's crap. My wife on the other hand will probably find the smart TV features much easier to use than the HTPC. She has no idea how to use the HTPC.
  12. As long as you aren't paying a hell of a lot more for the smart options that's not a problem. Just buy an external device when it happens. You still got x years of use without having to buy an external device. I guess the reality now is that you do pay a little bit more for them, but there aren't any real alternatives to smart models sans the smart. If you want a decent panel you need a smart TV. Luckily they are getting better.

    TV sizes are a bit of a problem right now. I've never wanted a TV in my bedroom or any other small room so it doesn't affect me, but the price differences between 32" and 50" are often so small that you might as well get the larger model. My girlfriend bought a 40" TV for a good price 2 years ago but it's just a TEAC. It does the job and she's happy with it when I'm tieing up the main TV with gaming but the interface and remote IR receiver are pretty terrible and the sound mediocre. The panel looks good enough but it needs to be a little bright to look its best which I'm not a fan of for something you watch a lot. Luckily neither of us do. For a bedroom that would be a huge problem to me. You'd ideally want a VA panel with good blacks so you can have it as dull as possible while still having decent contrast.
  13. Speaking of refresh rates... What do you guys think of the whole 120/240hz? I personally couldn't get used to the soap opera effect and turn that shit off back to 60hz!
  14. Same here on both my last two TV's, although it does seem worth it for watching most sports. I'm not into sport so leave it off all the time. The main problem I have with frame interpolation on TV's is that when the scene is static or movement is slow it looks normal, then when any movement/panning is quick it looks sped up.

    Curiously I found watching the hobbit movies in HRF 3D quite similar (although a better implementation) for the first 10 minutes but then loved it. Part of that might just be because the 3D experience was a hell of a lot better than 24fps 3D.
  15. It seems to vary by TV from what I've seen. Looks good on some, makes me feel motion sick on others.
  16. Motion smoothing always looks like crap whether it's 60Hz, 120hz, or 240Hz. I don't even understand why the higher Hz rates on TVs are necessary. It makes sense with PCs because it's possible to run games over 100fps but TV and movies are 24fps. A PS3 might hit 60fps but that's about it.
  17. The point is to run raw 24p without the 3:2 pulldown... 24 frames repeat evenly at 5x (120hz) or 10x (240hz). But since I've been watching with judder for decades, the final product looks too synthetic.

    Regular TV is already 30fps and displays frames evenly at 60/120/240... any processing is of dubious necessity.

    Also, it's difficult finding information on what a TV supports... you'd want hardware support for 120hz/240hz, not software processing. But this is nearly impossible to find beyond reading complaint/speculation threads on AVSforum. The software only solutions typically create other undesirable video issues trying to fix the judder.
  18. But it's just duplicating frames. Seems like a lot of work for naught.
  19. Any thoughts on Vizio TVs? It seems like they push them heavily at big box stores like Costco and Walmart. In the past the consensus seemed to be that they were mediocre and unreliable but probably better than other ghetto brands, and I know they would use the B grade reject panels that name brand manufacturers didn't want, but I'm not sure if that's true these days. Does Vizio even make sense with how cheap name brand TVs have gotten? I feel like they were a bigger deal a few years ago when name brand HDTVs were very expensive.
  20. On a sub-$500 budget, I wouldn't hesitate to get a Vizio. Walmart was dumping 42" Vizios for $250 a few months ago... you really can't go wrong at the price, IMO.

    If you're feeling adventurous, give this a shot!