You don’t know what you are talking about. Literally. You don’t know what drivers are included in either solution and you have literally zero idea what the quality will be like.
I highly suggest you perhaps test the final version and reserve judgement until then instead of a hypothetical poll to improve hypothetical specifications.
Actually I do know what I am talking about. If you want to sell the Audio as good; you make sure what is demoed is at least close.
If the 8k V2 prototype was what the v1 was when presented at the Kickstarter. The Kickstarter wouldn’t have been the success it was.
But you are right it is pointless to have this conversation as maybe we can agree with closed minds. Yours and mine.
Keep in mind I am not fussy on the Index solution either due to off ear idea.
Ah since you know what you are talking about, what driver are we using for the standard and deluxe versions? This will help so we can create the “Hi-Fi” version suggested in the poll.
Reminds me of the letter to uploadvr.
All we need to know as the consumer is that we don’t believe audio drivers above our ears directed downwards are as suitable to our use as over the ear headphones.
I could run the audio through my tens of thousands of dollars worth of hifi amp and speakers and get incredible sound…but it doesn’t fit my use case. Over the ear headphones do.
It’s not about the quality of the drivers, it’s our use case. And many of us require over the ear headphones.
When UploadVR starts a campaign on how to improve a headset that does not exist that has not been tested then let me know. They can suggest we do a “super ultra hi-fi” version that we can all get excited about.
Nothing to do with the lack of quality in their articles. 
Was interestingly illuminating. 
likely one of the rare times I have read something good on their site.
So to make it clear again: no, I’m not asking for a complete MAS redesign, just a more affordable option for the detachable headphones for the current MAS. And as you said this could be based on the p4K headphones to make it easier for pimax to add this alternative.
Changing the overall design compared to the 3D render is one thing, going from headphones to open speakers is way beyond simply changing the overall design, it is changing a key characteristic of an item that was part of the selling points of the KS.
If it was a contract I think lawyers would agree to say promoting the KS with a 3D render showing headphones means promising headphones in the final design, and that open speakers could not be considered equivalent, and that such a substantial change in the technical nature of the promised item would require the agreement from those who have paid for it.
We know KS is not equivalent to a contract, nevertheless it is easy to understand backers can feel fooled when Pimax takes the decision to change headphones by open speakers without asking backers if they agree with that change.
Accepting the cheapest way for pimax to propose this alternative, like re-using P4K headphones and not asking any total redesign of the rigid strap, is certainly not being greedy.
I have written on another MAS thread I’m not against the decision to make an open speaker version if people are asking for this, but this should then not become the default version replacing the headphones originally planned for backers as this is breaking a promise.
I am not against a deluxe version neither. But this requires paying more and the original stretch goal was free and promoted with headphones.
The objection is rational. But there are 2 elements that would suggest that this is so. The model is similar to that of the Rift-S and we already know that it is bad. Those who have tried it in public events say it is bad. It is therefore logical to think that such a system does not give good results. The fact that everyone thinks it anyway indicates that the choice was wrong wasn’t it?
Ok so we all realy hope the final version will be great
The question is not about evaluating the audio quality of your open speakers MAS. Good or not this will not change the fact it is not over-the-ears so it will obviously isolate less from external sounds compared to over-the-ears headphones.
Speaking for myself, as a VR user not benefiting from a super quiet environment (sound pollution from nearby highway) I don’t want an open speakers design for VR, whatever the sound quality it would be able to produce. This solution will let more of this sound pollution break VR immersion compared to any over-the-ears headphones.
Then I know there are “also” more or less closed/open speakers designs (not talking about the location of the speaker but its own design, open/closed/half-open), isolating more or less from external sounds, but even open design speakers located over the ears will at least filter some of the high-pitched external sound pollution, while it doesn’t require any scientific study to say a solution not covering the ears at all will just filter nothing.
The same applies to the sound pollution created by the audio from the VR headset to your nearby environment. It is obvious nearby people will be more polluted by the VR sounds coming from a design with speakers not located over the ears (and same for open VS closed speakers design), so I’m also not happy neither the new default MAS imposed to backers will make nearby people be polluted more by sounds from my VR sessions.
Heh I love this, it’s the perfect example on how subjective this type of thinking is. So all we have to add is “Everyone, everywhere entirely agrees with me.” Doesn’t matter that we have not shown the final in public and there is no objective data for you to use in an evaluation. You even work in a straw man argument “X is bad therefore Y must be bad too.” for good measure.
How about you just wait until we show the final and then you and “Everyone” can decide a) what the quality is and b) what areas we need to improve.
Just to clarify for people who vote (not sure if I can edit the 1st post without resetting the poll):
There is currently a single rigid strap design, and even with the suggested intermediate version there would still be only a single rigid strap design in the end.
The rigid strap has been made modular by Pimax, with the ability to swap the default open speakers with high quality over-the-ears speakers.
The suggestion is just to offer a third speakers option, over-the-ears as the deluxe but less expensive to produce so that it can be proposed for free to backers (as promised in KS) who would prefer that to the open speakers design and who don’t want to pay for a deluxe version.
As suggested by others this intermediate speakers option could be based on the p4k speakers if it was helping pimax to make it cheaper, easier and faster to add that 3rd option.
This is not a request to add something unplanned but just asking Pimax to respect what was originally planned for the KS: a free rigid strap stretch goal, with over-the-ears speakers.
Which is exactly the point if they wanted to sell this as good they shouldn’t have demoed it with bad drivers in the first place. The first impression of this solution is not a good one.
Since PimaxUSA likes his strawman. it would be like Bose demoing a new speaker system but thought it would be good idea to use poor quality drivers at a demo. And after most say it’s bad. “Oh the final version will use high quality drivers. We just wanted to show you something. Even though it’s not good as we said it was.”
I see two main issues with this approach:
Your arguments in this thread are very hostile IMO – of course we don’t know the specs of the D/MAS, they haven’t even been finalized publicly. As far as we know, there STILL hasn’t been official clarification that the Deluxe and Standard audio options ARE interchangeable, due to confusion caused by @PimaxQuorra and not cleared up yet to-date.
It doesn’t look good to leverage Pimax’s own delays in providing information as a tool to silence perceived dissent/rabblerousing.
I mean that this type of headphones gives rise to a lot of mistrust, perhaps wrong, but leads you to think badly, was it necessary to create this risk by choosing this type of particular product?
In any case, the conviction with which you are defending this choice, reassures me, gives me hope that in the end you will show us that it is an excellent solution, the final official one. 
You are definitely right. But if it were only a problem of having made a wrong choice of drivers at CES … I would have no problem forgiving the naivety dictated by enthusiasm.
But I really struggle to believe that a system that does not somehow cover the ears can be immersive and give a good VR experience, all other similar systems used by Oculus are not positive. But they seem convinced of the choice … and I’m like Fox Mulder “I want to believe” 
Convinced by the sound result (how could they know without having a proper implementation yet…) or by the savings on manufacturing costs and by the fact it will be less prone to hardware failure (= less aftersale costs, as there is no arm mechanism that can break).
Whatever design improvement they promise we are already sure it will isolate less from outside sound pollution compared to any O-T-E design.
How could it be different when in one case you have something covering directly your ears and the other case your ears are fully uncovered.
At best it may provide an acceptable isolation in loud VR experiences, but when the VR experience is quieter you will be polluted by all external sounds. No design improvement will change that unless they were adding a big enclosure surrounding both the speakers and ears (omg…).
Consider the good points, if you have to play and control young children … so you can hear them while you play.
I could see this idea be good for joggers in Central Park as well. Since you need to be aware of your surroundings. 
Or rather maybe should be.