Quad (4) monitor desk arm/mount/bracket

[dulcificum]

I have decided on a quad monitor setup (2x2 and in landscape, 24"). I'm looking for a good monitor mount that could ideally could handle 21"-27" for upgradeability in the future (also not mad expensive).

One issue I foresee is that while my desk isn't completely flush against the wall behind it (i.e. there's room for cables), if I don't want to have the monitors super close to me or lose a lot of desk space (let's say 8cm back from the wall at max), the monitors should have their backs pretty flush against the wall too.

The issue here is all arms work something like this with the base clamped to the back of the desk:

So obviously if the two side-by-side monitors are flush in the middle, the length of the arms is an issue unless there's lots of room for a backward "kink" in the elbow joint (think the bottom right picture. That seems to be the only way of controlling how close together each of the arms are. Is this going to be an issue with a 24" monitor (about 54cm wide int total i.e. centre of VESA mount needs to be ~32cm off centre) or are there other ways around it?

The only thing I can think of is going for 2x dual monitor mounts that are one on top of the other instead and using the base mounting as a way of controlling the gap but its seems hard to find good dual mounts in this format. This might have the added benefit of being a bit more flexible going into the future. Thoughts?

--

Regardless, I've been looking at quad monitor arms. After initially being a bit overwhelmed by the options, I think I've narrowed down the options the the following:

VIVO Quad Monitor Fully Adjustable Heavy Duty Desk Mount

Central pole at >73cm seems too tall for 24" monitors which are uuually only 32cm high each, some bad reviews about sturdiness​

FLEXIMOUNTS M16 Aluminium Quad LCD arm

Arms are made up of four segments. Going out from centre pole 3.8cm, 15.8cm, 15.8cm, 7.6cm. They aren't all 360° but I believe there's a permutation of angles that get each arm 32cm off from centre while not encroaching forward more than about 8cm. Don't like the tacky silver colour. Not many reviews.
​

Suptek Quad Monitor Arm

Comes with grommet mount as well as C mount but has to be constructed yourself. Like the removable VESA plates. Dealbreaker might be massive 80cm central pole which again seems like it would stick out over the top like the VIVO. Seems a lot of quality control issues however and alignment is crucial for me so might have to give it a pass.​

Lavolta Monitor Mount for LCD Quad

Can't find any dimensions but it claims all arms have 360° swivel so should be okay. Bit concerns by reports of wobble over time and plastic parts.​

1home Quad Four Arm Desk Mount

Again no dimensions and only 180° rotation on the joints. Comes with grommet mount as well as C mount. Good price and mainly good reviews although some very bad ones too.
​

Duronic DM354

This is the one I'm leaning towards. A 45cm arm made main up of two 18 cm parts and a good height 61cm pole.
​

Duronic DM352V2X2

The one on top of the other version of this. Not much more expensive buying two. Questions are a) would it solve my issue about getting a flush join in the centre (or maybe just make getting the heights matching a bit harder) and b) is 180° enough to keep the backs of the monitors flush against the wall?
​

Duronic DM454

Quite a lot more than the DM354 or two of the DM352V2X2. However, looks a lot nicer. Better cable management. And 360° on all joints. My concern here is the arms are 61cm long (presumably 27cm + 27cm + ~7cm for the mount itself and the connection to the central pole. I'm a little concerned there's not enough room to bend the elbow back and get the centre of each screen 32cm from the central pole.​

Anyone had to figure this problem out? Or especially anyone got experience with these particular mounts or quad monitor setups that went well or otherwise?

Thanks!

 

[DoubleTap]

what is your budget? Those mounts don't look like the sturdiest available...

 

[dulcificum]

what is your budget? Those mounts don't look like the sturdiest available...

Preferably £50-£70.

90% of the ones I've found are £40-£60. I've seen a couple for £150-£200 but they look much weaker than those.

What options are there for "sturdier" ones and where can you buy them?

 

[sharknice]

Have you used monitors mounted above before? It's a real pain in the neck, even casually glancing above at non-essential information on them becomes a pain.

If you want that many monitors I recommend either expanding horizontally, or setting them up in a way that the top row is at eye level. Looking down is much better for your neck and eyes.

 

[DoubleTap]

Have you used monitors mounted above before? It's a real pain in the neck, even casually glancing above at non-essential information on them becomes a pain.

If you want that many monitors I recommend either expanding horizontally, or setting them up in a way that the top row is at eye level. Looking down is much better for your neck and eyes.

Agree 1000%

Your budget is kind of low for a quality mount but I would look on ebay for a quality used mountfrom Chief Mfg. I have enough of their mounts to setup a small office and got most of it at 80-90% off retail.

 

[dulcificum]

Agree 1000%

Your budget is kind of low for a quality mount but I would look on ebay for a quality used mountfrom Chief Mfg. I have enough of their mounts to setup a small office and got most of it at 80-90% off retail.

The thing is I'm basing my budget on the higher end of every single mount I've found that actually has a review for it.

Here in Europe I can't find any Chief branded quad desk mounts available on ebay or Amazon but if you have links or a item name I can have a look.

edit: I just found a US site selling the "Chief Manufacturing Widescreen Quad Monitor Grommet Mount" for $543 (£408). It looks far less flexible than even the cheapest one I mentioned above and no more strong than the £78 Duronic DM454 for example. What benefits will I see for paying more than 5x as much (plus duty, tax, shipping, etc.)?

Have you used monitors mounted above before? It's a real pain in the neck, even casually glancing above at non-essential information on them becomes a pain.

If you want that many monitors I recommend either expanding horizontally, or setting them up in a way that the top row is at eye level. Looking down is much better for your neck and eyes.

There's no room on my desk for more than two horizontally and I have tried on other desks with three horizontally and waste a lot of time scanning back and forth from each side. There's much less in my immediate field of vision.

My eye level on the desk I'm currently planning on installing this on is about 50cm above the surface. Each monitor is approx. 32cm high so my eye level will be about 1/3 of the way up the top monitor. Do you think this is still too much? I expect 75%+ of active work will be on the bottom two.

 

[sharknice]

The thing is I'm basing my budget on the higher end of every single mount I've found that actually has a review for it.

Here in Europe I can't find any Chief branded quad desk mounts available on ebay or Amazon but if you have links or a item name I can have a look.

edit: I just found a US site selling the "Chief Manufacturing Widescreen Quad Monitor Grommet Mount" for $543 (£408). It looks far less flexible than even the cheapest one I mentioned above and no more strong than the £78 Duronic DM454 for example. What benefits will I see for paying more than 5x as much (plus duty, tax, shipping, etc.)?



There's no room on my desk for more than two horizontally and I have tried on other desks with three horizontally and waste a lot of time scanning back and forth from each side. There's much less in my immediate field of vision.

My eye level on the desk I'm currently planning on installing this on is about 50cm above the surface. Each monitor is approx. 32cm high so my eye level will be about 1/3 of the way up the top monitor. Do you think this is still too much? I expect 75%+ of active work will be on the bottom two.

That's not too bad. Ideal level is about 1/3rd from the top or right at the top depending on how tall your screens are.

IMO the more expensive mounts tend to be extremely overpriced and not much better.

 

[Keller1]

I've gotta ask, at that point, why not just wait a few months and get one of the new TVs and split it in software instead of 4 monitors?

24 at 1080p is equivalent to 48 at 4k in terms of pixel density.

 

[dulcificum]

I've gotta ask, at that point, why not just wait a few months and get one of the new TVs and split it in software instead of 4 monitors?

24 at 1080p is equivalent to 48 at 4k in terms of pixel density.

Hmmm, I honestly hadn't thought of that...

a) what "new TVs" are you referring to?
b) 1080p is nowhere near enough pixel density
c) as I understand it there are other quality issues with TV vs monitor but perhaps that's not an issue with these TVs?
d) I'm not yet aware of any software that gets close to the productivity of four separate screens...

 

[rtangwai]

Hmmm, I honestly hadn't thought of that...

a) what "new TVs" are you referring to?
b) 1080p is nowhere near enough pixel density
c) as I understand it there are other quality issues with TV vs monitor but perhaps that's not an issue with these TVs?
d) I'm not yet aware of any software that gets close to the productivity of four separate screens...

There are 4K monitors like the Dell P4317Q that do this in hardware right now, no software required. They basically have the ability to switch to the old MST standard w/4 inputs (one for each quadrant) similar to what was used in the old IBM T220/T221 monitors, as well as the modern SST.

As a bonus there is no requirement that all 4 inputs are populated from the *SAME* computer, useful if you have multiple computers plugged into the monitor array eg. laptop.

I generally don't like single mounts for quad monitors because they limit the degrees of arc you can place them in, which is a problem for me:

Having said that, if desk space is a premium a single mount makes more sense (as long as you keep the monitors to a reasonable size - 27" is about the upper limit for a quad mount with a single pole). Since most of the mounts you listed max out at 27", the bend on the mount arms will be fairly minimal as you will be hitting the outer limits of the design anyway - a 27" panel is only 2.5" wider than a 24" panel (before bezels).

I use a pair of Ergotron mounts on the monitors on the right, and a modified Atdec mount for the ones on the left. They are both outside your budget and not a really fair comparison especially as they are desk mounts and not clamped. Have you looked at this one? It is in your budget:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dihl-Brack...553265344&sr=8-18&keywords=quad+monitor+mount

I've never tried them so I can't vouch for their sturdiness, but they bend the way you want them to and have a 5 year warranty.

 

[dulcificum]

There are 4K monitors like the Dell P4317Q that do this in hardware right now, no software required. They basically have the ability to switch to the old MST standard w/4 inputs (one for each quadrant) similar to what was used in the old IBM T220/T221 monitors, as well as the modern SST.

As a bonus there is no requirement that all 4 inputs are populated from the *SAME* computer, useful if you have multiple computers plugged into the monitor array eg. laptop.

Hadn't seen that mount. Seems suspiciously cheap.

 

[Keller1]

Hmmm, I honestly hadn't thought of that...

a) what "new TVs" are you referring to?
b) 1080p is nowhere near enough pixel density
c) as I understand it there are other quality issues with TV vs monitor but perhaps that's not an issue with these TVs?
d) I'm not yet aware of any software that gets close to the productivity of four separate screens...

a) 2019/2018 4k 49 inch realeases ,mostly. SK8000 & up.
b) it's pretty much the standard for 24 inchers, but i guess personal preferences counts here.
c) since last year input lag isn't really a problem, overall image quality is far superior to what monitors have too. Only real potential downside is white Uniformity.
d) tiling window managers are all about this, but i guess they don't really work properly on windows?


There are upcoming 8K panels that will do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma at 8k60, as well as 4k120. Like the Q900R/Q950R/SM9500, depending on the size you're looking for.
Ultimately you're likely to be spending the same amount of money as you would for for 4x Good quality LCDs compared to any of those options.

I imagine that in a few months this year we'll have a plethora more options.

 

[dulcificum]

a) 2019/2018 4k 49 inch realeases ,mostly. SK8000 & up.
b) it's pretty much the standard for 24 inchers, but i guess personal preferences counts here.
c) since last year input lag isn't really a problem, overall image quality is far superior to what monitors have too. Only real potential downside is white Uniformity.
d) tiling window managers are all about this, but i guess they don't really work properly on windows?


There are upcoming 8K panels that will do 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 chroma at 8k60, as well as 4k120. Like the Q900R/Q950R/SM9500, depending on the size you're looking for.
Ultimately you're likely to be spending the same amount of money as you would for for 4x Good quality LCDs compared to any of those options.

I imagine that in a few months this year we'll have a plethora more options.

Thanks. My issue is that ideal size is probably more like 35" and it seems they smallest they made a few years ago was 40" and now it's even 43", dang

But I am rethinking everything. Perhaps the software isn't too hard. And getting rid of bezels would be lovely.

I guess my ideal world would be a 5K 35"-38" monitor with a slight curve that I'd segment into four quadrants.

The problem is the prices are crazy compared to TVs. And as you say, the new TVs aren't cheap either.

I'd probably still want at least one secondary monitor or two to chuck things off to the side on without it taking up too much room.

 

[rtangwai]

Thanks. My issue is that ideal size is probably more like 35" and it seems they smallest they made a few years ago was 40" and now it's even 43", dang

But I am rethinking everything. Perhaps the software isn't too hard. And getting rid of bezels would be lovely.

I guess my ideal world would be a 5K 35"-38" monitor with a slight curve that I'd segment into four quadrants.

The problem is the prices are crazy compared to TVs. And as you say, the new TVs aren't cheap either.

I'd probably still want at least one secondary monitor or two to chuck things off to the side on without it taking up too much room.

There is a big problem with what you are proposing for a monitor: a 35" 5K monitor has a PPI of 168. A 43" 4K monitor is 100 PPI, a 49" 4K is 90 PPI (a 24" 1080p monitor is 90 PPI). It means you'll either be squinting a lot, have your face quite close to the monitor, or struggle with Windows' poor scaling abilities.

 

[dulcificum]

There is a big problem with what you are proposing for a monitor: a 35" 5K monitor has a PPI of 168. A 43" 4K monitor is 100 PPI, a 49" 4K is 90 PPI (a 24" 1080p monitor is 90 PPI). It means you'll either be squinting a lot, have your face quite close to the monitor, or struggle with Windows' poor scaling abilities.

Yes I've done the ppi calcs. Ideal ppi on Windows at my viewing distance is probably more like 120 but I'll live with the scaling issues for the real estate. I have used a 2013 mac book with more than 200 dpi for years and yes I know macos does scaling much better, whatever the flaws are it's less bothersome than not having the real estate.

Of course I still have some working out to do but a single 4k monitor is nowhere near enough. 43" is probably too big and will result in neck strain. And 4 x 1440p 24" is bezeltastic and too expensive.

So I'm not sure.

But definitely 1080p on a 24" is never going to be close to enough dpi.

 

[Keller1]

Yes I've done the ppi calcs. Ideal ppi on Windows at my viewing distance is probably more like 120 but I'll live with the scaling issues for the real estate. I have used a 2013 mac book with more than 200 dpi for years and yes I know macos does scaling much better, whatever the flaws are it's less bothersome than not having the real estate.

Of course I still have some working out to do but a single 4k monitor is nowhere near enough. 43" is probably too big and will result in neck strain. And 4 x 1440p 24" is bezeltastic and too expensive.

So I'm not sure.

But definitely 1080p on a 24" is never going to be close to enough dpi.

8k at 65 is 130ppi. but that's gigantic.

 

[dulcificum]

8k at 65 is 130ppi. but that's gigantic.

Yeah sadly even if my desk could fit that size the neck straight and focus on peripheral vision issues make it a no-goer.

My laptop is >200 DPI but I think ideal for a desktop monitor with my desk layout is closer to 100 dpi.

I could stretch to 40" and work out a way of mounting secondary displays but that is a hard maximum. Dunno why there aren't 38" curved 4K TVs.