I’m barely 8’ from my 65” screen. My best tv is a 55” Oled in the bedroom. I don’t do surround sound anymore because the living room size has gotten much smaller. I miss the days of having a 20x25’ room. Those days are long gone.
I wouldn’t buy anything less than a 65” screen nowadays. And is it me or the screens have gotten smaller. My 65” screen is nearly as big as today’s 75” screen. What’s up with that?
I sit about 12 ft. from our TV in a stressless chair. We had a 55 inch but went to a 65 inch. No looking back, the 65 inch is a great size and doesn’t overwhelm the room. The 65 inch would work very well. If you look at the "recommended" viewing guide charts for TV viewing they would probably say a 75 inch would be recommended depending on the content resolution.
I started with a 55” with my seating position 12’ from the screen, after a while, it began to look very small! Switched to a 65” Sony OLED, it was much better, but it, too, began to look small! Was contemplating an 87” but, bit the bullet when a good deal came up on a 98” and I jumped on it. So far, I’m loving the experience, still at 12’ viewing distance, and wondering how long it will take before, it too, looks small! When it comes to TV’s bigger is better.
have an 85incher coupled with a room corrective sennheiser ambeo max and my face is about seven feet from the screen.
Every time I catch a faint whiff of heated electronics it takes me back to that experience.
My Don Sachs tube preamp driving my First Watt F4 poweramp.
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 much of that night and today placing them in various locations and distances in the room . I’ve narrowed my chosen locations down to two.Another often overlooked aspect of viewing and vision is that our peripheral (side to side) viewing is greater than our vertical (top to bottom) vision. The sense of overwhelm from large image is due to image height, and not so much image width. The older days of 4:3 aspect ratio screens, a 70" rear projection TV could be quite overwhelming, both physically and from a viewing perspective. That 70" image was 42" high, roughly equivalent to a 85" 16:9 screen today.
Here’s one more reason to go BIG:
If you watch blockbuster movies, these are (almost) always "letterbox" or 21:9 aspect ratio. This reduces the image height fairly significantly, around 60% of the full 16:9 height. So, doing the math: a 65" screen will produce an image size of approximately 57" wide by 24" high. In this case you are, literally, watching the equivalent of a 48" television. Which brings us back to the good "ole" days. Imagine that massive 35" CRT television.....
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 plan probably ever 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?