4 ms·
> ... I wanted a 4K monitor. To all the folks reading at home... I would remind everyone that a TV is not a monitor. I got a relatively inexpensive LG 43in TV
by ansible 6y ago
> ... I wanted a 4K monitor.
To all the folks reading at home... I would remind everyone that a TV is not a monitor.
I got a relatively inexpensive LG 43in TV to use as a desktop monitor. I've had issues. Beyond the usual "make sure your graphics card actually supports 4K" and such, you also need to take some time to dig through the TV settings when you are using it on a PC.
In particular, you definitely want to turn on "game mode" or whatever it will be called. This turns off the internal image processing that can add hundreds of milliseconds of lag to the display output. You'll also need to find the settings to turn off the overscan. Many TVs will, by default, zoom into the center of the image, cutting off the edges a little.
I've mostly gotten over the other issues with using a TV as a monitor (color settings and such), but if you want to save yourself some hassle, just get an actual monitor.
- VectorLock 6y agoTVs can make pretty serviceable monitors. I was using a 4K Samsung as a monitor for quite some time and it worked fine, but the "smart TV" features were definitely annoying.
- geerlingguy 6y agoI'm calling what I want for my living room a 'monitor'. I want a TV that's a monitor, basically, not the other way around. For my computer, I use a 32" LG 4K monitor, and it's great. No 'smart' features found there. But I can't find a 4K monitor in the 42-50" range that has multiple HDMI inputs that is not incredibly pricey (e.g. broadcast/commercial realm) I could use in my living room.
- chrisweekly 6y agoCurious why multiple HDMI inputs matter, given a decent A/V receiver (a few hundred bucks) can handle it for you (along with waay better options for audio)?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y agoAVRs are a huge hassle to deal with, and overkill when you only have 2 or 3 devices to switch between and/or don’t have many audio-only devices. AVRs made more sense during the days when we’d have CD players, tape decks, VCRs and DVD player, vinyl record players, cable/satellite STBs, and a game console or two all hooked up. Now it’s just an STB (if you aren’t a cord-cutter), a Roku/AppleTV/Chromecast/FireTV, and maybe a Blu-ray player (or BD-capable games console, which also doubles as a Roku/AppleTV/etc).
- chihuahua 6y agoWithout an AV Receiver, how would you drive a set of speakers?
- recursive 6y agoI use powered studio monitors. They drive themselves.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y agoThat's what HDMI ARC is for - the TV can be connected to a normal speaker amplifier (so the TV acts as the receiver, basically). I'm wary of using HDMI AVRs today because they add input lag.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chrisweekly 6y agoIt seems our experiences and priorities are quite different. I've never found any "hassle" in using an AVR for its intended, dedicated purpose: centrally managing various audio and video inputs and outputs and driving surround speakers & subwoofer. Inputs include Cable box/DVR, PS4, AppleTV, and (sometimes) Nintendo Switch. Audio out leverages our home theater surround system, and video out is a single HDMI into the tv. I have no interest in using any "smart" tv features, tv speakers, nor attempts at playing the role of a dedicated receiver. Unless you're a hardcore gamer measuring latency, IMHO use of an AVR is simply the right tool for the job. Nothing overkill about it. Put the "smarts" in a decent universal remote, keep the tv as dumb (literally; it's for video only) as possible, ensure everything sounds great, and never fiddle with the cables ones it's set up. YMMV, but this has served me very well for over 15 years.
- vladvasiliu 6y agoI've been having my eye on an LG 43UD79B [0] for a couple of months, that I would use both as a monitor and as a TV. It has 4 HDMI inputs and a USB-C with display port. It even has a remote. It's an IPS panel though. From what I hear not everyone loves those. Amazon has it in France for around €600. [0]https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-43UD79-B-4k-uhd-led-monitor https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-43UD79-B-4k-uhd-led-monito...
- amyjess 6y agoAs a side note, if you want to watch 4K video, keep in mind that as of right now, _the_ main draw of 4K is HDR (most 4K video out there is upscaled), and most cheaper 4K screens (both TVs and monitors) don't support HDR. Or if they claim they do, they only "support" HDR in that the monitor does tonemapping in hardware but can't render HDR colors. The technology is still new enough that getting the cheapest 4K screen you can find is still a really bad deal.
- imtringued 6y agoWhy not just get a 43" monitor instead of trying to misuse a TV as a monitor?
- user5994461 6y agoBecause the 43" TV is $200 while an equivalent computer display is double or triple that.
- WorldMaker 6y agoYGWYPF? The price difference can sometimes just be the ads, bundled apps, and other "smart" features designed to put a couple bucks back into the hands of the manufacturer selling that TV at low or now margin.