What is the best screen size?

I have been experimenting with various screen sizes for many years, especially triple monitor setups or very large single screens. In this post, I will try to figure out which one has worked the best for me in various scenarios. Choosing a monitor is not just about the size, but about the screen resolution i.e. your pixel real estate. Personally, I think the number of pixels is just like horsepower. It is impossible to have too many. Another very important factor is the refresh rate. Currently, I am running a triple 4k 27” setup, and for engineering purposes I think it will be all but impossible to back to anything less than 4k. Still, I am not satisfied because this setup has some serious drawbacks.

My first triple monitor setup was three 17” CRT monitors some 20 years ago, and today I smile by thinking about the sheer weight of them. And another benefit was probably that you would never need to go to the beach to get a tan… At the same time, I was using a single 22” CRT screen which an equally impressive weight. Things have moved on a lot and a triple setup just makes so much more sense with flat screens. On a daily basis I have used the following setups for enough time to write an honest review: 3x24” 1080p, 3x22” 1050p, 3x27” 2160p, 3x24” 1440p. The purpose has been >90 % engineering work as an acoustician.

I used the triple 24” 1080p monitors for a very long time and this is a very good combination. This is a very common combination and can be had for dirt cheap today, even with brand new stuff. The 24” size is just about perfect with regards to size. For a multiple monitor setup it is important that you don’t have to turn your head too much to see the side screens. On a typical desk, the distance is enough to just glance to each side with comfort. This is very nice.

I once came across some 2nd hand 22” monitors for 50 SEK a piece which I bought just for fun. I wanted to try surround gaming and used them to complete GTA V. The smaller size is actually very good with regards to gaming. Triple screens on 24” and larger can be a bit overwhelming in comparison, depending on the distance and game choice of course. But I was very satisfied with them, and I also used them for desktop work. I just remember that I wrote my PhD thesis on them, so that tells you something about how many hours I used them. I also used them for some years after joining Acouwood. However, the greatest problem with them is the limited 1050p resolution. This resolution is thankfully considered legacy today and has been replaced by 1080p. But the lower pixel count makes a huge difference when working with drawings. I found myself constantly zooming in and out to read the drawings. Everything was muddy and difficult to interpret. That’s why I got frustrated and pulled the trigger on a triple 4k setup for the next upgrade.

I had experienced 4k for many years on a 40” screen. Note – I mean a computer screen, not a TV. Depending on what you are working with, the 40” can be both wonderful and terrible. I find it to be a perfect match for DAW and music production. It was also great for gaming. It feels like the equivalent of having a quad 2x2 setup with 24” 1080p screens. But for office productivity like Word, it was rather disappointing. This is when video conferencing started to take off, and I quickly realized that when you put a webcam on a 40” screen, the angle is very strange. You video yourself from above, and you will never make eye contact with the other side. Honestly, for video conferencing, the mega screens are horrible at least for single users sitting by a desk. I have also used an even larger 43” 4k screen in my music studio, and all the above conclusions goes without saying for that one too. For productivity as an acoustician, smaller sizes are much nicer.

Let’s now evaluate the 3x27” 2160p setup – my current one. There are two reasons I went with 27”; 1) I wanted to try it and 2) you can’t buy anything smaller with 4k. Maybe there exists some exotic screen with 4k in 24” but they tend to cost a fortune, so I consider them irrelevant. We are talking about a triple setup here, so the price per screen is very important obviously. Anyway, the 4k resolution was a blessing when working with drawings. I cannot express how much I love them in engineering work. No matter what zoom level I am using in a Bluebeam review session, I can always read the text! That is a serious boost to productivity right there. But there is another thing that has annoyed me for quite some time with the larger 27” size. When using them in a triple setup, I cannot achieve enough distance to them even though I am using gas-loaded arms and have pushed them as far back as possible. I constantly find myself turning my head quite a lot to the sides to be able to see the side screens properly. This is not nice at all from an ergonomic perspective. It is a borderline deal-breaker. Another issue is that 27” screens are higher, which means your camera must be placed a little too high up to get optimal immersion in video calls. That is a pity. You should always try to place your web camera so that you can make or at least fake eye contact with it during calls. This is so much easier on a smaller screen. Ideally, the camera lens should be right in the middle of the screen…

Recently, I decided to buy a bunch of 2nd hand 24” screens again, but this time with 1440p resolution (the title image of this post). This resolution sits right between 1080p and 4k and might give enough clarity in the drawings while maintaining good ergonomics. Re-used products can be a real bargain. I paid 240 SEK per monitor which is a seriously good price for a bunch of 1440p screens. The only caveat is that they came without stands, but for a triple monitor setup, you need to put them on mounting arms anyways, so it is a non-issue for me. I am now writing this piece on the 3x24” 1440p setup and this feels very nice. Good ergonomics, OK screen resolution, good camera placement and low price. I think this might be the best compromise, all things included. Except refresh rate, that is.

In my wife’s home office, we installed dual 165 Hz screens. High Hz monitors are primarily aimed at gamers, but oh boy, when you try high refresh rates out, it is a game changer that is impossible to unsee. It is not just for gaming. The mouse pointer moves seamlessly and feels exceptionally fluid and “alive”. I am convinced that my aim is way better and that this is a productivity boost or at least the best placebo I have ever tasted. In comparison, regular workplace monitors often use 60 Hz which is OK (if you have never tried anything else). The mouse pointer jumps around on the screen so bad. It is choppy in 60 Hz. The problem with the high refresh rate monitors is that the reasonably priced ones are usually 1080p which is fine for gaming, but not for productivity work. There are high resolution/high refresh rate monitors out there, but they are so expensive it hurts. And you need three of them… ouch! Hence, it’s not going to happen anytime soon. The “unicorn monitor” for me would be 24”, 4k resolution and high Hz. I do not know of such a product on the market right now.

Except ultra-wide curved monitors that have entered the market recently. I have not tried such a screen yet, but maybe this is the way to go for me? The screen real estate would be like having a seamless dual 4k monitor setup. And that’s not half bad. Price still remains an issue because you are not going to find anything in the sub 1000 SEK range like I did. And another thing that I have been sceptical about ultrawides is the ability to screen share in Teams/Zoom or for livestreaming on Youtube. I think it is great to share my left or my right monitor, so I have full control on what is sent into the ether. On an ultrawide, I would most likely have to share individual windows which is cumbersome for my use case. Maybe there are some apps that can create regions on an ultrawide so that you can share the left or right side in Teams and keep the other 50% of the screen for your eyes only. There’s probably a solution for that. But the camera issue remains. If you want 2160p on an ultrawide, it will probably be a huge one. Consequently, your camera must go up higher which is a pity.

Anyways, as you can see there is no perfect monitor for all scenarios. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Everything is a compromise, and you have to decide what is most important for you and choose accordingly. I have not used the triple 24” 1440p for many hours yet, but my gut feeling is that this might be the best compromise so far. Mostly because of the ergonomics. I will not get rid of my triple 27” 4k yet. There is one option remaining that I haven’t tried. I think I can modify the mounting arms for them to gain about 100 mm more distance and this might not sound much, but a little goes a long way when it comes to ergonomics. That 4k resolution is seriously addictive…