I think 27" 4k with some scaling is a good spot indeed.
32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or 3008x1692.
On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and native (3840x2160) is just too small.
But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k is really the endgame.
That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)
There are 32" monitors with native 2560x1440. I still prefer that dpi to run Windows, where some apps still have problems with hidpi scaling. It's mostly about older and niche apps, but every now and then you encounter something that doesn't scale well.
I do find that 4k with scaling still feels crispier than native 2560x1440.
And I also find myself switching between 3008 and 2560 a lot, depending on the workload I have. 2560x1440 is nicer for reading, 3008 is nicer for programming, video editing, ...
The PPI ratio for 32" 4k with no scaling is actually pretty good (at least to my eye, since it's similar to my previous 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p monitors). If we can agree on that, then the solution is to just move the monitor closer to your eyes, 3rd party monitor arms help with that.
> then the solution is to just move the monitor closer to your eyes
Depending on how close we're talking about, it may not be so great, especially with a non-curved screen, because the actual angle at the edges is possibly not so great anymore. That's the case on my 32" LG, for example (with an IPS panel, FWIW).
Significant difference. 32" 4k is not pleasant to read natively, and bringing it that close that is would be readable means you are putting things out of your focus and you need to start moving your head a lot.
32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or 3008x1692. On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and native (3840x2160) is just too small.
But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k is really the endgame. That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)