As 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.

I really don't understand 4K 10bit HDR video that's still only 29 FPS. Why is smooth motion not a focus at all?

For my work desktop, the main thing was to have more terminal windows open. Video was a secondary concern.

I'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.

I'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-monito...

Curious 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)?

AVRs 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).

It 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.

I have the inverse of your setup. PS4, Apple TV, and Blu Ray Player use the 3 HDMI inputs on the TV, with an optical out audio cable to an input on my Sony receiver.

My receiver is older and doesn’t have HDMI in, but this solution works well with the TV I have. When a device is turned on, the TV wakes up and switches to that input. If the PS4 is on and I turn on the Apple TV, it will auto-switch. I never need to touch the TV remote at all since the devices go to sleep automatically, which is nice. Apple TV remote handles the receiver volume, and the audio input never changes on the receiver, so I don’t need the TV or receiver remotes at all.

Yep, different strokes for different folks. :) I've never had a TV w decent audio out (nor reasonable input sec switching), rather started w focus on amazing sound (Hsu Research Ventriloquist 7.1 w down-firing sub), and eventually the receiver's role was expanded to encompass video. Whatever works for you!

Without an AV Receiver, how would you drive a set of speakers?

That'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.

I use powered studio monitors. They drive themselves.

TVs 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.

Why not just get a 43" monitor instead of trying to misuse a TV as a monitor?

Because the 43" TV is $200 while an equivalent computer display is double or triple that.

YGWYPF? 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.