I agree. But since ppl bought into doing these ttl pics & videos none of them seem to be serious enough to create a professional like rig to do them. While some are decent there is too much variance to be taken too serious.
Really need side by sides more akin to what Eurogamer does for flat gaming compares.
Besides the fact that I would always be quite sceptical of a comparison posted by the manufacturer of one of the two compared devices, and the video is of a quality which leaves man-sized holes for easy manipulation towards a desired result, I would be careful to dismiss the Varjo Aero so easily.
First of all, it does perform its (limited) set of specs largely well; save for some dead pixel issues (?) we could read of. If I would consider a product, which has a number of additional features on paper better, depends very much on the availability and quality of implementation of these - the jury’s out on that.
The headset I tried back at the road show stop at MRTV’s place would not have convinced me enough to prefer it over the Aero, i.a. due to the convergence issue (which they say has been corrected, but knowing my 8KX gives me a similar experience, I’d would be careful to verify it is resolved). But it definitely has the potential to surpass the Aero’s value proposition, in part due to latter’s clear limitations, i.e. the small FoV, no audio, no wireless, (no standalone if you care about it), and a relatively high price.
But before declaring the Crystal the winner of the two, real customers need to confirm what Pimax are claiming.
And for me, at this stage neither the Aero nor the Crystal would be worth the price being tagged to them. Hence why I never considered buying the Aero and would be pretty cautious to consider it with the Crystal too: only if there is no other headset on the horizon slated to perform comparable quality and it performs with a pretty much flawless visual quality and wireless performance with little hassle, might it manage to convince me. But that is not what I expect to see.
The 12K might be more interesting due to a unique FoV - I might be prepared to accept the extra hassle of using a Pimax product and smaller flaws for that gain, if it manages to get visual quality & wireless (applying DFR) done. With some decent comfort too, please.
Well as said I personally don’t put much stock in these videos. If you recall Marcin tore into Seb over uploaded video at 1080p vs 4k upload…Which Seb uploaded at 1080p as it is only good to get a vague idea on quality differences… Even uploading at 4k or higher you still have to consider not only video proceeding of the upload but the video processing and image capture of the recording device. Then you have the streaming and processing to the persin viewing the video on(lcd, oled, qled and at what res), with what are they viewing the video on and what is your browser and hardware doing to the stream.
That being saud if it is like sime if the earlier Crystal TTL videos pimax did not make some of them themselves
For sure but with what both devices at this point match on(Aero really doesn’t have anything extra that is not being demoed) so the the current specs and features that align are being compared. The extra features that the Crystal had that are not demoed really don’t need to be compared to the Aero as it doesn’t have them to be comparable. So we can comoare the features and the price difference. To which atm economically even without extra features save the Crystal does come with Audio and the Aero does not. The Crystal is the better buy. The extras the Crystal is advertised would simply if work well or perhaps not would still make the Crystal seem to be an even better bargain.
At present with the caveats/issues with requiring the battery when wired to use; I am skeptical about Wireless and Standalone use. Since Pimax is using the XR2 and not the XR2+ the res will definitely need to be lower than native with possibly lowering refresh to 90hz or lower. Res by specs of the XR2 is a definite for Standalone to be less than native. But those are extras that atm there is no modules to augment the Aero to have and if came out would be additional cost increasing the price of tge Aero. Plus lets not forget the Aero price is headset only; you still need to buy controllers and lighthouses.
This is something always best to have supposed fixes verified as often it may only be fixed for some with maybe not all. Original 8kX for example with Seb vs the revised he was happier with.
As for sway would you then consider paying quite a bit more for the Aero then as an incomplete full setup that even lacks Audio out if the box? That being said I know to own you said neither are appealing due to price abd FoV limitations.
It will be interesting if the 12k can actually acheive the FoV there setting out for. Even.ppl whom have received the Crystal may have some clues on whether the frame would suipport a 200wide as the face gasket would have to allow the screens/lenses to wrap around the sides of the head. See Math Protractor if the screen is screen/lenses are more in front of the eyes best we could likely get is 180wide.
Abd we know the Crystal has missed hitting tye origibal Advertised HFoV/DFoV values much like the original KS hmds.
To be frank, I really don‘t need the advertized FoV of the 12K, I’d rather have a good edge2edge clear 180 degrees horizontally utilizing the maximum of the displays resolution in the visible area. So that is not my biggest concern - it should just be vastly more than the Crystal offers.
On the other points re Aero vs. Crystal: correct, the Aero was not appealing to me due to very high cost and serious design mistakes like the missing built-in audio solution. But if I had to take one of the two today, I would be torn: while the Crystal has serious potential upsides, if these don‘t work out as desired the components to achieve these might be diminishing the value of what is functional: as you mentioned, tethered use case battery usage would be one; added dead weight for battery, SoC etc. would be another one. And general concerns of Pimax headsets & software being high mantenance.
But this is an academic discussion, in the current state I wouldn‘t buy either of the two. Both are priced out of the range of normal VR headset upgrades you get every 1-2 years.
Tbh I think pimax’s max fov of 160 wide with edge to edge clarity would be enough. Especially since most only use Normal at 140 wide for gpu rendering savings.
On another note pimax is tripling down on there FoV misinformation.
It is too bad as the impressions of the Crystal have been quite good even though the FoV is clearly not 125 wide. Even a couple of there reps long ago endorsed Risa’s hmdq as correct.
The team whom endorsed this update clearly do not understand if you render a FoV of 103 and apply a transform dor 125 wide you get a fun house distorted image.
FoV is still greatly concerning.
Not saying in any way the headset is a bust.
However, PIMAX shouldn’t be running around touting their own measurements without the corroboration of some industry standard measurement. If there is such a thing?
With removal of any subjective deviations.
For Example:
Industry Standard Measurements confirm a maximum HFoV of 125°.
HFoV may be less due to things like the users’ facial shape, types of cushions used and variation in eye positions.
Now. If they could nail down some widely accepted Industry Standard measurement and make the above statement, then I think this can be put to bed…
Indeed pimax is not using a standard save what there hmd is passing onto Steam/Game to render.
Which does not align with there claims of greater FoV which as mentioned if the rendered FoV does not match the distortion/transform you get a stretched distorted image.
Risa’s tool is not subjective as it pulls the info that the driver passes to steam.
All they have to do is clarify there mistake which even Voodoode using an older bugged test hmd was 103x113 with the 113 being 10 degrees higher than actual.
Next they will go back and state they never claimed a revised optical cable was going to solve/remove the batter use in tethered mode.
First off. Thanks for the 
Update Crystal FAQ
Second, please see below:
It means there is a THIRD Lens being created besides the 35 & 42 PPD lenses?
THIS IS CONFUSING… PIMAX website in SPECS says the 35 PPD lens is 140° DFoV
Yet in your post, you mention the 35 PPD lenses are 130° DFoV
WHICH IS IT?
Thank the heavens you guys FINALLY put something really ‘OFFICIAL’ out about this.
HOWEVER:
As it may not be well known, there are some limitations in technology regarding how AMD GPUs and their drivers can work with VR technology.
Would PIMAX please take this opportunity to explain this to the consumer, any limitations when running VR under AMD GPUs as compared to nVidia GPUs?
What are the known issues/limitations, advantages/disadvantages of running a PIMAX Crystal on an AMD GPU?
Please point us towards resolution numbers/data for both PCVR and All-In-One mode.
What specifically are the numbers for:
Illuminator/Sampling Frequency = ??? Hz
Image Sampling Rate & Gaze Frequency = 120Hz (?)
What do you think @Heliosurge ? Think I’ll get any kinda response on this? Or are my questions completely illegitimate? 
Your questions are all reasonable especially askings like the now claim of 130 diagonal when there other material claim 140 diagonal is the 35ppd lenses. Now we all know the FoV originally spec’d is incorrect not only by results of hmdq but also Test hmd align with each other’s results. Even Steam and games are not being requested to render the claimed FoV; so if tye game is not rendering the advertised FoV anf the image looks great; then pimax driver is not setup on these lenses to have a greater FoV.
The request for Standalone details and Amd pros and cons is also reasonable save there are things that will be common among vr manufacturers. But things like this new model and software will Tobii and other foveate methods work? Or are they still only piggybacking on Nvidia’s hit n miss driver techniques?
That being said @PimaxQuorra has likely collected the questions and requesting authorized details be released. Which may take sometime; especially if some details the team think atm will not have a favorable response.
Like during the initial stages of original ks @PimaxVR ducked/put off answering direct questions on Amd compatibility. Which they Knew RX and Vega56/64 cards were completely broken.
I receiving early had this confirmed at a computer shop where the owner is on Amd’s advisory board. Pimax during that time had failed to provide amd with a unit to work on fixing things on there end(and had told Amd they were going to have to wait til backers received)… When they were made aware that I had 2 hmds they asked him to secure one of my hmds with giving me whatever I might want for it. So it paid mostly for my upgrade to Ryzen 7 2700x with mobo and Ram.
Amd gpu backers would have and were upset that Pimax during all that time did not put honest efforts in getting that resolved during the lengthy waiting time for the product release. The beta was not managed well as no testers were audited and selected that had Amd gpus.
Hello,
I have added this matter to our weekly report and intend to discuss it with our developers and product manager. We hope to have answers by Monday and assure you that we are not ignoring the issue, but rather actively working towards a solution.
Thank you #PIMAX Quorra 
Aplushhss 
Thanks @PimaxQuorra
It’s all about active communication to timely correct any inconsistencies.
Providing more timely, clear and concise information to the community only helps PIMAX build its trust-factor with consumers.
I believe the more PIMAX can improve on the above, the more likely people will have more confidence in PIMAX, and that translates into PIMAX becoming a higher priority on the consumers’ list for purchasing VR products in the future.
Appreciate your attention.
Excuse me if I missed it: @PimaxQuorra
But could you point us to the exact tech specifications for the 12K mentioned below?
Differences:
The main differences between the Crystal and 12K are the screen panels, FOV, and pricing.
Would like to confirm the Screen Panels and FoV (lenses, etc) Price too of course(Estimated ok)
Thanks
By the way, what‘s the current status on Wireless and Eye-Tracking for fully functional DFR? I heard that Nordic recommends to use an RTX4070Ti at minimum for MSFS, that would seem to suggest that you cannot leverage DFR. I mean, if the headsets are sent to the beta testers you would assume that these core features must be fully functional and robust by now.
Good timing, I just posted a video:
Btw, still under NDA for another 3 weeks so can’t go into full detail until then. For now I’m sticking to videos as I can be sure the content in those doesn’t violate the NDA and after it’s up I will share all my thoughts etc. So far, overall, I will say it’s quite positive with some refinements it will definitely be my personal favourite and main headset. The most important thing though is to take opinions from multiple people and not just one. For reference, I don’t mind heavier or larger headsets while that would be a deal breaker for some, things like that I am referring to.
Oh and the chevron is no longer a sticker haha. It’s stuck on I imagine but it’s now a solid piece of plastic.
@Atmos might be a good time to bring up your table of specs again from the OP. With news hopefully dripping in from now on we might get a better picture if features are functional now and how good they perform.
Your impressions on the unboxing is quite good not really too long imho.
So atm the beta group has the copper cable and test plastic lenses for only the 35ppd.
The controller does look decent upgrade. I am also looking forward to hear more on the inside out to remove LH use; less components to go wrong. And of course LH currently is useless for non pcvr.
Congrats.
