Best 1440p 16:9 monitors for TATE games on retro consoles?

[Galdelico]

Not sure if/how it can help, but further testing with the LG 27MU67 proved a couple of interesting facts:

- OSSC LineX2 mode looks AMAZING. Yeah, it's not a typo... LineX2.
I'm aware it's down to personal tastes (and many of you will find it blasphemy!), but 240p and also (wich is the biggest surprise) interlaced contents - both in NTSC and PAL60/50 format - have such a strong analogue feel to them, that I can tell almost no difference from what I used to see on a CRT/PVM.
Sure I love thick scanlines, so I keep them on with every source (XBOX included), but I'm so happy about it. OSSC is doing pretty much exactly what I always desired for my retro setup.
Sure, LineX2 doesn't output in true 4:3, so the screen appears to be slightly wider than how it should be, but it's nothing in comparison to what it offers in terms of IQ.
LineX3, on the onther hand, looks a bit like the Framemeister at 1080p. Super bright, super clean, but the scanlines, even at 100%, remain a bit too thin and artificial.

- the transition from one screen resolution to another one (with the games that switch, like Saturn's Virtua Fighter 2 or Dead or Alive) is pretty much seamless. It still takes a couple of seconds or so, but it's quicker than with the Asus I own and - most importantly - doesn't make the screen click, or bring up the AV port's description box every time. That was extremely annoying on the Asus.

- for some reason, the monitor (I guess it's the monitor, considered the note in the OSSC wiki page) doesn't seem to like 480i/576i passtrough, and - even with the ratio set to 'original' on the LG - it does the weirdest things when it's enabled (not that I ever wanted to use it, but still... It was for test's sake), stretching the image beyond belief.

So far, aside from the VESA mount which bummed me out a bit, and the faint backlight bleed (expected, so no big deal there), I'm really happy with this LG. Not a single defective pixel either on the whole panel.

PS - not sure it's appropriate here, so I may crosspost the same question to the OSSC thread... Other than the very brief documentation you can find at the wiki page, is there any specific setting that needs to be touched in specific circumstances/with specific consoles? For example, interlaced sources jitter quite a bit when 'paused', and - even though scanlines really help masking alot of crap out of the way - I wonder if it's normal, or maybe I didn't set the OSSC as I should (many options, even after reading what they do, still sound like an alien language to me... )?

[Xyga]

Not sure if/how it can help, but further testing with the LG 27MU67 proved a couple of interesting facts:

- OSSC LineX2 mode looks AMAZING. Yeah, it's not a typo... LineX2.
I'm aware it's down to personal tastes (and many of you will find it blasphemy!)

I will sound like a broken record but that also depends on the display's ability to upscale the OSSC's doubled output.

--

[kinda off topic rant on linedoublers]

Actually, significantly more so than linetriple and up; I find that how a linedoubled output will look depends on the quality of both the doubler and the second scaler in the chain (whether it's the display's built-in or an external like a DVDO).

Linedoublers obviously don't all look the same (even if the differences can be subtle), and here comes the greater blasphemy: among all those I've tried (no quite as much as Fudoh but still a lot!) I find the DISPL beat all XRGBs and the OSSC in 'charm', in that it produces its own smoothness and texture, it's hard to put in words; smooth but neither destroying the sharpness of a properly doubled image, nor forcing a disgratious blur/haze like the XRGB2 does for instance.

It's kind of like it is coming with its own EE/DE (like on the vp50pro) cranked down very gently, acting as a pre-processing of the picture, it's coming obvious in particular when playing without simulated scanlines.
This is more pleasing than what the sharper doublers like the XRGB2+, XRGB3 and of course OSSC produce and for which the end-result depends on the display's built-in scaler.

The DISPL isn't perfect but it remained my favourite doubler even after I got the OSSC.
Of course the latter with its ability to do linetriple and more stands in a different league like the Mini, but it is also true that with higher multiples/scaling the output will look more generic, kinda like a filter-less emulator.

[/kinda off topic rant on linedoublers]

[aaronk]

It also lacks audio out, which would be an issue for HDMI consoles.

Well good luck with that because if you use a search engine like I recommend to, you'll see that filtering with 'integrated speakers' or 'audio out' will bring your results down by 90% or something. Manufacturers consider audio whatever to be cost>price inflating fluff, save maybe for a selct few models in the luxe/pro categories.

Most of the Dell displays have 3.5mm audio out. Actually all of the displays that PC Monitors recommends include one, except the HP.
It seems to be a pretty critical feature for connecting the AVS or modern consoles (though some have separate optical audio out). I'd have to get an HDMI audio box like this.

Yeah whatever, remember this is a video games forum so we kind of never talk about desktop scaling. I just thought Mac users are typically resolution whores coz all the pro software they use etc, so I said 'downgrade'.

I'm a programmer, I just like it because text and UI elements look nice when you can't see the pixels.
And once you have it on your phone and laptop display, monitors at 1x start to look a little primitive.

Anyway that aside, if you're only interested in video games, you probably just want to go for a 1080p display right?

[Xyga]

Anyway that aside, if you're only interested in video games, you probably just want to go for a 1080p display right?

Depends. PC gamers will always want more regardless of sense and cost. 'Retro'gamers (the largest demographics here) have various needs because they play old consoles and arcade boards via external hardware scalers, but also current HD-level consoles, and emulators with increasingly sophisticated pixel shaders.
Those interested in the latter will want more than Full-HD.

[Xer Xian]

Well, even 1080p may be unwarranted for retrogaming on a digital display through the OSSC. I am still of the opinion that a small selection of old non-wide monitors will do the job just fine at a fraction of the price. Upscaling is a non-issue since you can enjoy 1:1 pixel perfect mapping with small borders thanks to the lower native resolution of these panels (5:4 1280x1024 may just be the sweet spot due to it being very near a line-doubled 640x480 / line-quadrupled 320x240 signal). Yeah response time will not be up to today's standards but we're talking maybe a couple of milliseconds here - IPSs still lag behind (no pun intended) VA panels considerably even today. Imho the main hurdle is that you'll have to resort to used panels on ebay or wherever, but there's a way to look for operating hours in the OSD for good brands (like NEC and Vizio), so that you can avoid getting a dud.

Edit: panel size could be a limit too as in the case of the OP - btw good to hear you're happy with your purchase Galdelico.

[Xyga]

Yeah response time will not be up to today's standards but we're talking maybe a couple of milliseconds here - IPSs still lag behind (no pun intended) VA panels considerably even today. Imho the main draw is that you'll have to resort to used panels on ebay or wherever, but there's a way to look for operating hours in the OSD for good brands (like NEC and Vizio), so that you can avoid enging up with a dud.

If it's older IPSes and VAs you're talking about (like pre~2010's) those were about two to three times slower than today's, or used extremely crude and agressive overdriving (when available) literally ruining the results to get faster.
The best IPSes today reach average response times of about 7~8ms at 60Hz and even 4~5ms at higher refresh rates, and this without any significant artifacts.
Also IPSes are significantly faster than VA due to the latter being unable to deal with difficult dark<>bright transitions, and that will probably always be the case.

I am still of the opinion that a small selection of old non-wide monitors will do the job just fine at a fraction of the price. Upscaling is a non-issue since you can enjoy 1:1 pixel perfect mapping with small borders thanks to the lower native resolution of these panels (5:4 1280x1024 may just be the sweet spot due to it being very near a line-doubled 640x480 / line-quadrupled 320x240 signal).

I understand you probably have one you like and try to make your point, but there's no way a decade or near-decade old 5:4 monitor could compete with today's standards and performance. And it's not just the pixel response; even the backlighting methods (that have finally settled), colors/FRC, lag, coatings, most everything is better today.

Of course some models were famous for a time, like some old NECs series (I think) IPS that came with an 'anti-glow' layer (but were nowhere near today's IPS performance anyway) or the PVA of yore which had near-plasma black levels (but the response times of a slug and absurdly wrong colors), etc etc.
Now if we're talking "doing the job just fine" then we can as well take almost anything, see people on the Amiga or X68K communities going extatic over absolutely horrendous 90's~2010's TN thrash bin finds just because those are pre-HD standards era and therefore often typically don't block non-vsynced 15Khz and 31KHz signals.
I'm okay with that, whatever, but I'm dead set about being honest with people giving them as up-to-date real and verified information as possible, not mixing it up with approximations whether they're from yesterday or the present.
Actually with the perspective of retrogaming the stuff of consoles and arcades and our 'struggle' to make that look decent on moden displays, we're supposed to lust for ever better-perfoming ones, so I hope you understand your position is kind of similar to 'giving up'.

[Xer Xian]

Xyga, I never intended to diminish the advices you've given or your knowledge in general, which is way more vast than mine.
Yes, I have on of those monitors myself (I wouldn't suggest stuff I didn't try out personally), and I was just voicing my opinion, as I stated.

If it's older IPSes and VAs you're talking about (like pre~2010's) those were about two to three times slower than today's, or used extremely crude and agressive overdriving (when available) literally ruining the results to get faster.
The best IPSes today reach average response times of about 7~8ms at 60Hz and even 4~5ms at higher refresh rates, and this without any significant artifacts.

I can't provide exactly measured numbers (reviews used to be quite crude when these monitors were out: for example), but I have had the occasion to try a modern IPS and I didn't perceive such a huge difference. May be me.

Also, I have no doubt there have been more refinements in these years than what I listed above - I stand at fault for not mentioning them. They certainly are a game-changer for someone. As for me, they are not worth a €/$3-400 expense (and forfeiting use of 1:1 mapping with small borders) especially now that good OLEDs (which may make these technologies obsolete) are around the corner.

Actually with the perspective of retrogaming the stuff of consoles and arcades and our 'struggle' to make that look decent on moden displays, we're supposed to lust for ever better-perfoming ones, so I hope you understand your position is kind of similar to 'giving up'.

I was just pointing out that there are very cheap options that may accommodate well the needs of the less exacting among us.

[Xyga]

Well I'm not looking for recognition or thanks nor am I some 'monitors scientist' either, just been following the thing for a little over a decade, let's say I'm a better-informed user. It's just that I believe it is important to tell people who read this thread - please don't get mad - that what you've stated about IPS and VA is wrong.
Look at that review you linked, as crude as it is the guy still gives the following information:

18 ms (rise/fall) and 9 ms (grey-to-grey)
contrast is specified as 600:1

Which is freaking awful by today's standards, even the viewing angles are not that good for an IPS.
You may not see it but trust me the difference is enough to say "no contest".

I know the times are rough, but today you can get a 22" Full-HD IPS with about 2~3 times better performance at 100~120€.
If we're talking value then such an old 5:4 IPS for me isn't worth 50€, I'd get one for 10€ as a spare maybe if I needed to line up plenty of monitors for a crowded event, but definitely not as a main monitor for my everyday retrogaming.
We're not talking OLED of course that's almost beyond the thread's scope and more like 2000~3000€ (min) anyway.

Sorry I have to sound like a douche but you know, the curse with tech products is that people will focus on approximations and false statements because it's considerably easier than going through the whole learning curve, or trusting annoying assholes like me (or NCX who's received quite a bit of wood for his strictness on both the basics and the details), so where I can I just shoot the potentially false-belief-generating statements on sight.
Customer opinions, random misinformed forums posts like "yeah that monitor I got is awesome, X uses it too and says its terricfic", and what I call marketing/contents reviews from generalist websites and aggregators, are what probably 9/10 of the people looking for a display will trust, following the buzz. Nobody can change that, it's the internet, but when possible it is prefereble to try bild a better-informed niche (like a thread full of nosy-picky hair-splitting posts :p) sorta like an island.

[Xer Xian]

No worries Xyga, I am an easy guy, if there are flaws in my reasoning you're welcome to point them out. Let's see if you can convince me to upgrade too

Yeah I agree that the contrast ratio of that model is a bit ugly - but I think you could find better in this regard even back then (maybe up to 800:1? Will check).
As for response time, what I see now (well, at least up to some months ago when I looked into it) are figures that are very impressive on paper, only to get considerably nerfed down once you read reviews with actual measurements. It's not unusual at all for an IPS panel to have a declared 5ms GtG which even doubles once actually tested - reaching the exact same figure of that old 5:4 NEC. Of course the same may well apply for the latter though, no doubts. That's why I had to rely on my personal impression to compare my old monitor with a newer one in terms of response time (and ended up dismissing the difference as minor). Yeah, that's as unscientific as it gets, sure.

Said that, if you have a suggestions for a 22" Full-HD IPS with about 2~3 times better performance at 100/120€, I'm all ears Surely at this price we're talking second hand panels though?

[Xyga]

Said that, if you have a suggestions for a 22" Full-HD IPS with about 2~3 times better performance at 100/120€, I'm all ears Surely at this price we're talking second hand panels though?

I don't think you need me to point at any particular product numbers, I've used that as a reference to highlight that the old used monitors you say are a bargain are not so much.
So if you read the thread you've seen that I gave basic guidelines about how and what to look for, you can use this on the internet to sort the products.
The usual supects for affordable IPS/PLS are LG, Samsung, Acer, HP, even AOC, all make monitors of that type starting in the 100~120€ fork for the 21/22", especially LG/Sam.
Though if you're looking for reviews you'll have more luck with 24" and 27", then follow the products numbers schemes and you'll find the different sizes and prices.
Performance and feature differences between sizes might happen, and the 22" are less documented and therefore kind of in a semi-blackhole zone, but this is why people like NCX and reviewers like PCM2/Adam from pcmonitors are here.
Prad.de still review entry-level products from time to time (rarely though) and tftcentral not at all anymore.

[Galdelico]

I will sound like a broken record but that also depends on the display's ability to upscale the OSSC's doubled output.

(...)

Linedoublers obviously don't all look the same (even if the differences can be subtle), and here comes the greater blasphemy: among all those I've tried (no quite as much as Fudoh but still a lot!) I find the DISPL beat all XRGBs and the OSSC in 'charm', in that it produces its own smoothness and texture, it's hard to put in words; smooth but neither destroying the sharpness of a properly doubled image, nor forcing a disgratious blur/haze like the XRGB2 does for instance.

(...)but it is also true that with higher multiples/scaling the output will look more generic, kinda like a filter-less emulator.

I'm new here, so don't worry about sounding like a broken record.
Also, I'm new to this whole scenario as well - since the OSSC is literally my first attempt to shift 'playing retro' from standard CRT screens, to modern displays - and I still have basically no first-hand experience with the devices you mentioned. That said, I can relate to what you wrote, and I guess that's the reason why - so far - I've been so impressed with LineX2. As you said, it's really difficult to explain, but it gives me that distinct 'OK, now we're talking!' feel, I was looking for since the beginning of this adventure.