55” or 65” TV Screen Size and Your Speakers: Please Join Survey
With my two-way speaker build on hold as the clock ticks towards December 31st when my $1200.00 in Sony card points expire, I am struggling to decide between the 55” or 65” Sony A95L OLED TV. Sitting on chairs at Best Buy, I tape measured 11 ft from the 55”, which looked small, while the 65” looked too big at the same distance.
My largely empty living room is 20 ft x 11, with the west side open, crossing a 4 ft wide x 27 ft hallway and into a ~ 10 ft x 9 kitchen and then 3 ft wide staircase. A triangular ceiling that peaks at 11 ft is above it all.
I plan to listen 10 ft from my speakers, with the TV between them and a foot or so behind the horns.
I built the 65” (56.9” w x 33” h) cardboard mock and to my eyes at 12 ft the 65” “screen” looks immersive.
I will build the 55” (48.25” x 27.5”) mock as soon as I can get more cardboard from the local supermarket.
Meanwhile, it might be very helpful to learn of the experiences of other 55” and 65” TV users.
How far are you from one of those screen sizes?
Do you sit on a chair or recliner?
Please describe the speakers that you use in place of the TV’s internal speakers, and how far you sit from them.
A little science (and history) from a guy who’s been designing and installing Home Theater before the term "Home Theater" existed. We just called it "Giant Screen" back on those days. (I still have a Kloss Novabeam stored up in my loft).
There is actually science to apply to screen size vs viewing distance. The theoretical goal was to determine at what size/distance a person with 20/20 vision could not longer resolve a pixel. For 1080P resolution, this number is approximately 3x screen height. The math is pretty straightforward for standard 16:9 aspect ratio screens. The height is 50% (+/-) the diagonal. A 65" screen image would be about 32 1/2" high, placing a minimum viewing distance of around. 8’. This would produce high resolution, artifact free image from that distance. This would also "assume" a native 1080P image, or content that is of sufficient quality to be upscaled with good results. Poor quality content may lack detail or resolution, but glaring pixels (that make the image look like your viewing through chicken wire) will not be an issue. Moving forward to 4k, that minimum viewing distance is cut in half. Yes, you can sit less than 5’ away from the screen and have a nearly perfect image with quality content with a 65" screen.
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 that you just bought for the family’s enjoyment. After setting up and testing that set on full-screen broadcast, you quickly reach in your Laserdisc library for a "correct" (not panned an scanned) version of your favorite movie, and .... huh??!! That beautiful new 35" set is displaying a 12" (YES, TWELVE INCH!!) high image. A bit underwhelming, to say the least.
A word on center channel:
Yes, center channel is the way to go. One consideration is room acoustics (or lack of them). When using 2 speakers to produce an "phantom" center channel, you have energy emitting from 2 speakers (often close to room boundaries) to produce that center channel information. With a center channel, you’ve cut the complexity of the signal (and its resultant reflections) in half. We’ve had highly reflective rooms where dialogue was unintelligible with 2 speakers, and "tolerable" when the burden of center channel info was sent to a single dedicated speaker.
You should have plenty of data b y now. I've seen this thread on at least three different sites.
BTW, my opinion is that you will have to compromise movies or music when you combine the two. You will have to be ok with that, and pick which one you want to prioritize at the detriment (however slight) of the other one.
Another option if you are not pressed for cash is both a TV and a projector. You can mount the 55” TV as planned. Then put a pull down acoustically transparent screen in front of your speakers. Best of both worlds. Bit movies at night and no 2ch compromise.
some of these cheap life style projectors are good enough for the casual movie watcher.
@waytoomuchstuffthanks for all the science, very interesting and informative. OP, here's another strong vote for the 65. My listening room is ~ 19' x 14' with a 65" TV centered on the end of the rectangle. It's flanked by a pair of Magnepan 3.7s and a Perlisten D15s sub a few feet forward of the TV wall, and I have Ikea Poang chairs ~ 15' feet from the TV wall. My 65" TV is great but getting older and when I replace it, I will likely opt for a 75". I have definitely never wanted a 55" in that space. When the 65" TV is off, it does look pretty damn big hanging on the wall. But when I turn it on, it seems like the right size if not slightly too small. I don't use it very often but I will occasionally watch sports with the sound muted while spinning records. I don't think you'll regret getting the 65". I suspect you will regret a 55". Every now and then, size does matter. 😉
revel’s 226be is a nice sounding slender speaker if you ever wanted more room but I think they lack dynamics/snap next to a good horn. I would keep the horn and rock the phantom center.
While the compression may not necessarily make the movies sound as bad as if the audio had clipping (overload) distortion https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Inferno-3D-Blu-ray/174325/ , hum or other audible noise, if you were often to play such content, might the lack of dynamics and flatness of the sound become very fatiguing, even with well-designed horn speakers?
When is streaming audio quality planned for improvement? It's awful awful awful and could be so much better better better. What the hell is wrong with this planet where they can't do simple things like this?
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.
There are formulas that tell you the screen size compared to the number of feet from your eyes to the TV. This is that when watching a movie your eyes are not playing tennis. Using that formula I can get a 77 inch screen.
go with the largest TV possible. A 55 inch is small. Larger than 65 is what you need. Always go as big as you can.
@waytoomuchstuff, the Kloss Novabeam! I have fond memories of sitting in our basement, watching Star Wars on laserdisc in front of that big silver screen and thinking "it will never get better than this". Of course, at 13 years old, everything seems that way!
Every time I catch a faint whiff of heated electronics it takes me back to that experience.
@ajant- one more add to the go bigger list. If you like the impact that a movie theatre screenscape gives you, the distance from the most popular seats in any movie house as a ratio of the diagonal dimension of the screen ranges between 1:1 to 1:1.5 - this is a whole lot closer than most people sit to their tv screens at home. If you have access to high resolution film, a larger screen gives impact like nothing else. I have a room large enough that my viewing position is not constrained. I have an 85incher coupled with a room corrective sennheiser ambeo max and my face is about seven feet from the screen. I could use more speakers for a more immersive effect, but movie sound for me is way less important than my two channel audio. The combination of 85inches, seven feet and sennheiser is amazing : )
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 ditched our receiver and 5.1 setup and went with an upper end samsung sound bar side/rear speakers and subwoofer. It was better integration and actual sound. After all it's only TV since we have a dedicated 2 channel room
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?
You may not have room for this, but I offer this recommendation because it was a wonderful solution for 2 channel main systems. AWOL makes short throw laser projections and screens specially made for this purpose. The projector sits perhaps 15 inches on the floor in front of a screen that opens and retracts into a long narrow box (perhaps 5x5x115 inches) that also sits on the floor, just behind the plane of speakers. So, between my Apogee Divas I have a screen that is 120 inch diagonal (they come in 100 and 150 in screens, too); it fits perfectly between the speakers. It automatically opens, rises to a height you program, and which the bottom of the picture is about 18 inches above the ground. Two JL subs sit in front of the retractable screen, just below the projected pictures/videos, so nothing obstructs the picture or sound. I can choose pure audiophile listening, or watch yotubes or blu-ray movies. The picture is great, with great brightness, contrast, clarity and focus - day or night ! I highly recommend visiting the AWOL site. One of the best purchases I've ever made! Not mounted, retractable, of high quality and reliability. I hope this helps someone!
Background: I have a quite large room w/vaulted (16 ft) peak ceiling, ~25 ft by 28 ft. The large TV viewing sofa is a little more than 1/3 of the way from the front wall, where a long/low cabinet holds my LG OLED. The seated viewing position is maybe 10 ft from the screen. It’s 77".
Re this: "Sitting on chairs at Best Buy, I tape measured 11 ft from the 55”, which looked small, while the 65” looked too big at the same distance."
Nothing about what you saw at Best Buy matters nearly as much as what you see in your own space. And my experience has been--go large, as large as you can, and you’ll never regret it.
In my big room, the TV doesn’t exactly look small, but it also doesn’t dominate the room. In a smaller room, a 65" can look somewhat dominant. But all that vanishes when you sit down to watch. 65" is IMHO the minimum screen size to trick your eyes into being impressed. But even bigger can work well so long as the room and furnishings permit.
I would gladly have an even bigger screen if the cabinetry permitted. But 77" is max, and I love watching that big OLED. BTW, I’ve research that very same Sony OLED and read some rave reviews of it. LG & Sony are the only OLED brands to seriously consider IMHO.
When you go to the movies (do people still do that?) where do you sit? How immersive do you want the experience? I usually try to sit where the screen fills my whole field of vision so usually try for the seats behind to the crossing isle.
My current TV is 85 inch and doesn't seem to big at all.
omg, dystopian sci-fi by way of Musk and Jeremy Rifkin, "action" for the warrior culture and incredibly dumbass comedies. Sadly, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" was the last time I was in a movie cinema-and thank goodness I brought my ear plugs.
You may not have room for this, but I offer this recommendation because it was a wonderful solution for 2 channel main systems. AWOL makes short throw laser projections and screens specially made for this purpose.
Yes, I sure considered this but it won't fly for several reasons. My room is only 23 ft wide. The triangular ceiling peaks at 11 ft, but the south wall's s only 11 ft and then empties into a ~ 3.5 ft hallway, beyond which is a 9 ft 8 kitchen. And while my long wall might allow a screen that big, with my speakers and subs reasonably well placed, my chair would be in the hallway, In any case, with a screen that big I'd need to have even more room to use a recliner; otherwise I'd be forever craning my neck to have my eyes reasonably on axis with the screen. NOT happening in this size room. Besides, could this or any projector compete with the Sony A95L's contrast and black level range? Also, Sony just reduced prices by ~ $300. And I have $1200. in Sony card points that I have to redeem before the rewards program ends Dec, 31st. So it's got to be a Sony OLED.
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.
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.....
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.
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?
Yes, center channel is the way to go. One consideration is room acoustics (or lack of them). When using 2 speakers to produce an "phantom" center channel, you have energy emitting from 2 speakers (often close to room boundaries) to produce that center channel information. With a center channel, you’ve cut the complexity of the signal (and its resultant reflections) in half. We’ve had highly reflective rooms where dialogue was unintelligible with 2 speakers, and "tolerable" when the burden of center channel info was sent to a single dedicated speaker.
From what I’ve usually heard at speaker design and home theater forums is the trouble with adding a center speaker is that unless the drivers are virtually identical to high, mid and midbass drivers in your main speakers you’ll likely end up getting discordant timbre and other unpleasant issues. It may be hard enough to “match up” drivers in a Revel, Wharfedale KEF or what have you brand center with those in the front radiating cone drivers of your mains. But what if your speakers are horn speakers like Gary’s? https://galibierdesign.com/wa-trip-01/
I took my centre speaker over to two friends' who also believed a centre was not necessary, and after trying a few films with/without, they both bought a centre speaker and said it (watching a film), was a MUCH more involving experience with a more even soundstage where vocals were much better produced, and the whole film sound stage was more clearlly defined. And, as for the poster who doesn't use a pair or rears!!! Wake up man, you're missing a MASSIVE amount of film experience.
Trust me, I'd have no problems spending serious money on a center speaker.
But as I just explained above, all DIY speaker builders I've consulted strongly advise not using dissimilar drivers in mains and center speakers. But are you saying from experience that YMMV that much in favor of disregarding this advice? I'd hate to have to ship a > 45lb center back to an online store.
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.
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.
From what I’ve usually heard at speaker design and home theater forums is the trouble with adding a center speaker is that unless the drivers are virtually identical to high, mid and midbass drivers in your main speakers you’ll likely end up getting discordant timbre and other unpleasant issues. It may be hard enough to “match up” drivers in a Re
If optimizing for a single listening position, you don't need a center.
It is indeed hard to find a good center speaker design. A concentric driver would most probably be needed for such an application and you will need woofers crossed over 250hz or under (not too high).
Nevertheless, two wide dispersion Fronts and two wide dispersion Surrounds (@ approx 110 degrees)/ optimal positioning should work for a lot of guys....i.e., if it is a single listening position.
This week with hundreds in Sony Card points it’s time to buy a new TV.
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.
No tv in my (main) basement listening room, but I replaced the Plasma’s with a Sony A80j 65" oled in 22 and in the family room in 23 the A85 Sony oled. Both sets are google OS and have been problem free. The family room can’t be difficult for friends or family so I use the Yamaha YSP-5600 with a 15" paradigm sub that doubles as an end table. The living room sports the 65" with a revel ultima 1 center, a pair of VA beethovens being drivin’ by an ancient HK AVR. I’ve found audio requirements are less critical for an immersive experience with video.
While I don’t have the experience to compare Sony oled to other brands like LG (which makes the sony panels) or Samsung I come from using Plasma’s so while the Sony’s are much brighter in comparison to what I was used to I have read reviews that state the ultimate brightness may be lacking for some rooms, idk. Regarding screen size? As big as will fit the room that doesn't give you a headache while watching! always get a 2-4 week return/exchange guarantee.
It shows the supposedly “new and improved” A95L scoring worse than the A95K on this parameter.
Until I read this review I didn’t even know that stuttering over low frame rate content was a problem with any OLED TVs!!
How will this impact the A95L’s DVD performance? This is critically important as many of my favorite movie titles and TV shows in my large collection, on DVD for years, have next to no chance of ever being issued on BD. And I have no plans to subscribe to any streaming service as an alternate source.
I also have numerous Youtube downloads, of either 720p, 420p-and early ones at 240-that I would also want to view on this TV occasionally.
I had planned to buy the A95L this week. But if it’s likely going to stutter on any of this content please suggest the next best Sony OLED model that won’t. However, the TV’s 4K performance is irrelevant as I only play 2K BDs and DVDs from my collection and those I borrow from local public libraries.
What’s very bad now is that the best such 65” model (s) may no longer be available at Best Buy, PC Richard, Wal-Mart, Target, Microcenter or other retailers in the New York area.
I would order said models from online stores but they MUST be authorized Sony retailers or I will not be able the redeem my $1200.00 in Sony Card points-and the sale must be made before December 31st!
10ft away a 55 inch will look too small IMO. I have a 65 OLED about 8 ft away and wish it was bigger. Best Buy for the next couple days has a Samsung 77 inch OLED for 1599 or 1699. It’s over half off. IMHO OLED is the only way to go.
I have 77” Sony a80j (from a few years ago) OLED and have never noticed any stuttering on any content.
Most reviews have said that the a95l is the very best TV you can buy and I’ve never heard the stuttering issue mentioned on other reviews (eg Digital Trends).
BTW, my TV is in my bedroom so I just have 2.1 system using Magnepan LRS+ and a sub. Sound is great and I don’t miss not having a center channel.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
