I've been using my 2 19 inches. (apect ratio 5:4) at the native 1920x1080. In my studio space this gives me a nice readind size and I can see a full page, The 16:9 aspect ratio is a step backward on that front from my point of view.

So here what I am trying to visualize since I don't know anybody using a daw with a big monitor, is what happens when you increase the monitor while keeping the aspect ratio constant?

Are you seeing the exact same thing but bigger........so no real estate gain. or

Everything gets smaller, which means you can get more tracks and mor measures but with the side effect that things get smaller.

I like the 32 inches I get with the above two monitors but it probably means a 40 inches TV but I'm concerned all That in the end I get more other than eliminating the middle gap in a multi-screens configuratios.

Cheers


Mario

Bigger resolution = more real estate.
 
A 15" and 32" screen both set to 1920x1080 will display the same number of tracks but the 32" will be physically bigger making it easier to see. Setting either one to a higher rez (4K=3840x2160) will shrink content allowing for more of it to be seen but individual details (like text) will be harder to decipher.
 
https://www.notebookcheck.net/DPI-Fineness-of-Displays.1310.0.html

Soens is basically correct, but "easier to see" is harder to define. At some point making the same pixel field cover more area will lead to pixilation of the displayed characters when you view them. If that is extreme then you may have a bigger character that is not easier to read.

In this case, you want to make sure the larger monitor has good native resolution.  Previously I had a 50" plasma about 10 years old.  I literally could not read anything on it, so last year I upgraded.  Now I have a 60" about 4 ft from me and maybe 2 feet up.  it's very easy to read everything even from 10 feet, so I use that for track views and wave editing.  I also have a 24" about 2 feet from me I use for the console view, but it's actually much harder to read that.  I have to move my face about 1 ft to see my plugin lists, for example.  
 
Although, my eyes...they ain't too good no more...

I had never paid too much attention to the subject but the more I read reviews/comments I realize that in the end just don't spend a s.... load of $$$ on a monitor unless you can bring it back to the shop 'cause you will not know if the specs on paper really meets your expectations until you have your daw running on it...

Thx for the point of views!

Mario

The issue with selecting and placing displays always requires more precision than is generally applied in the back-and-forth we have in various fora.  That's because there's an interaction between the pixel density per inch (PPI), the total number of pixels (resolution is 3840x2160 for 4k), the screen size, the viewing distance, viewing height, and finally any magnification factors you'd apply to the native resolution that reduce it in a disciplined way. 
 
I have an article on my website called '4k Hooray' that walks through those factors and has multiple web links to calculation sites.  The predecessor to that article was 'The 4k in the Road', and it journaled my frustration with the transition from HD (1920x1200) displays and a WHD (2560x1600) display. 
 
Right now, I usually run my 55-inch 4k at 115% magnification in Win10, and at the first notch below native (can't remember the numbers) in macOS.  It's enough to make my eyes happy without much sacrifices in 'screen real estate' . My viewing distance is around 42 inches. 
 
For example, a 50-inch display from 10 years ago was probably still just HD (1920x1080) and so there was no real estate advantage over a smaller display, but there was the advantage of a longer viewing distance.  In my 55-inch implementation, I had to sacrifice a convenient viewing height because of my mixer, but gained the advantages of more screen real estate by laying out my track, console, and video windows in a different manner than before.
 
Don't give up. It's possible to get what you want with patience, a tape measure and some calculations. 

It's funny,

Tack height of 0.5"is comfortable at a viewing distance of 1.5
to 2 feet....I'm using near field monitors which allows me to create
the listening triangle with my 2 19" in between.

I'm dreaming of keeping the track height as above but to get more of them
visible.

i'm also pretty sure That I need to favor height or width but not both.

......and my video doesn't have an hdmi out......(-:...

yeah, yeah, an upgrade is required!


Mario

mariogag
It's funny,

Tack height of 0.5"is comfortable at a viewing distance of 1.5
to 2 feet....I'm using near field monitors which allows me to create
the listening triangle with my 2 19" in between.

I'm dreaming of keeping the track height as above but to get more of them
visible.

i'm also pretty sure That I need to favor height or width but not both.

......and my video doesn't have an hdmi out......(-:...

yeah, yeah, an upgrade is required!


Mario

Mario -
 
If your current displays are 1920x1080, a 38" 4K will double your real estate and keep the physical size of objects pretty darn close to what they are now.
 
This would be the same as adding 2 more 19" display above the two you have - without display boundaries mucking up the view.