Welcome back to the channel, everybody!

When you dip your toe into simulation, whether it be flight or racing, you quickly realize the incredible potential for near-total immersion with the addition of a VR headset. If you have followed the progression of VR hardware over the past few years, it is clear there have been leaps and bounds in capability. This right here is the Varjo XR-4.

Varjo boldly claims that this headset is the leader in not only the resolution of the screens inside the headset but also on the outside with 20-megapixel passthrough cameras capable of an insane 51 pixels per degree and autofocus. (Oh, autofocus is only available on the $10,000 version. Gotcha.) The passthrough isn't 51 PPD either; that's also on the expensive one. So what's this one, then? 33 PPD? I see. Cool, cool, cool.

Is this $4,000 headset taking VR in the right direction with its human-eye resolution optics, spatial audio, inside-out tracking, eye tracking, and much more? Or is this just a hollow platform to showcase a handful of top-tier hardware? I'm Jesse; this is Bartman's Bits, and today we are taking a deep dive into the XR-4.

Now, this did release a while ago, and the reason I didn't make a video right away when I got it was that the unit I received had this weird grid pattern on it. So, I had to get a replacement unit, and now that I have, I've been able to test it with the newest software as well. We'll get into that a little bit later.

Before getting into the meat and potatoes of the review, let's compare the specs between the Aero, one of the best headsets out there for simulation, and the XR-4.

Comfort

The XR-4 shies away from the typical facial interfaces like the Quest 3 and Pimax Crystal, opting for no pressure around your eyes and nose, with all of the headset weight resting on your forehead. I find this to be more comfortable for longer sessions with one caveat: this design is not great for movement. The Quest 3's supporting method brings the headset tight up against your face, keeping it secure for rapid movement, which is essential for those completely wireless or disconnected standalone headsets. The XR-4, on the other hand, is supported much higher on your forehead, allowing for the headset to rotate left and right if you move your head quickly. In a long flight or a race around the track, your head isn’t moving too much, so for my application, it wasn’t an issue. However, PCVR users playing games requiring movement may find this really annoying.

Adjustment for the XR-4 is done using a wheel at the back that moves the rear pad back and forth. As mentioned before, the headset is supported mostly on your forehead using this mesh pad on top, which also has its own adjustment to move the optics up and down. I have some major concerns with the construction of the side pieces, as the thickness allows for some serious flexing. Just take a look at this: you can hear it. It just sounds like it’s going to break, and that is a $4,000 headset.

IPD adjustment is automatic. When you put the headset on for the first time, it adjusts for your eyes. There’s also a way to bring the lenses closer or further away with a button on the right side. Control within the headset for things like volume, eye-tracking calibration, and other features is done through a touch bar on the side. I found this to be finicky at best and frustrating when trying to accomplish simple tasks like increasing or decreasing the volume.

I am not planning on using the XR-4 for anything other than simulation, so the use of mixed reality cameras isn’t really a concern for me. However, for those who do plan on using passthrough cameras, you will be severely disappointed. There are two problems: one, the low light capability of the cameras used is very poor. Comparing it to the Quest 3, which I feel is the best option for passthrough right now aside from the Apple Vision Pro, walking around my studio is easy with the Quest 3, and I can grab objects and see screens without difficulty. The XR-4? I can barely make out what is on the screens. There’s a decent amount of lag, and the image is grainy and dark. The second problem is the way Varjo uses foveated rendering for the passthrough. There is a box that is higher resolution which moves around with your eyes. The problem is there is a delay in this movement; it’s not smooth. This creates a sickening movement that gave me an instant headache and motion sickness when trying to move around the room. It’s also not big enough to trick your eyes. The main part of your vision sees the line between high and low quality, adding to eye fatigue and more motion sickness. I’ll add a third issue: there is some sort of softening going on that mucks up the final image. It’s like they’re trying to make it look less grainy in lower light conditions by adding some noise reduction. Maybe that’s why there is a delay. Final verdict: not good. These issues make the passthrough pretty much useless, a far cry from the human-eye level of resolution that the marketing promised.

It’s great that Varjo has listened to the gripes of the community and added speakers to the XR-4, something that was definitely missing in the Aero. This is part of that complete package, out-of-the-box experience they are trying to market. Varjo doesn’t say too much about the specs and only claims DTS spatial audio compatibility. Now, I am absolutely no audio expert, but I’m pretty sure just about every pair of headphones in existence is compatible with DTS spatial audio. As far as the quality of the audio, I give it a solid “meh.” The ear headphones like the Valve Index and more recently the DM add-on for the Pimax Crystal are the gold standard for VR audio, and anything else just seems to be okay.

In my opinion, if you’re designing a headset that isn’t going to be standalone, put the over-ear speakers on it and make them detachable for those who want to use headphones. Done.

Testing the Varjo XR-4 Microphone

Okay, so this is a test of the Varjo XR-4 microphone. It took me a while to get this set up. It does not record your voice when you’re using the base that is showing here on the screen. I had to go in through OBS and set up an audio capture to capture the input. Now that I got that set up, how does it sound? Does it sound like a typical gaming headset where it’s kind of nasally, tinny, and not that great? Or did they get something right here with this microphone? It is noise-canceling, and I have a computer down by my feet here that’s an open test bench. You can see it right there, and it is quite noisy. So if I pause for a second, if you can hear those fans going, then the noise canceling isn’t working that great. But if it did mute that, then awesome, that’s a thumbs up for the microphone here. So, which one is it? Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Ergonomics and Controllers

Powered by Razer. What does that mean? Seriously, if you’re going to throw a name like Razer on there, why don’t you explain what that collaboration actually does for the product? Maybe it’s because these aren’t really that great, and Razer didn’t want to take full credit for this failure. The main thing wrong with these is the basic ergonomics. Having fondled many a controller in my time, I can say this is one of the worst. It starts out with a great idea, so great in fact that it was used by Valve many years before. The strap on the Index controllers wraps around your hand and has a crucial bit of adjustment, allowing for different hand sizes to get the controller in the ideal position. The XR-4 has the same style of strap but deletes the adjustment option. The result is the controller only fitting in one specific orientation, which for me put my thumb in an awkward position for the joystick. The buttons on the controller are okay, a little spongy, with a very clear click to them. I wouldn’t say they’re great or bad; they’re just average. The triggers are decent and springy, and there is a side button that has a good click to it. Again, with my use case for the XR-4, I don’t really use the controllers that much, so someone using this for other PCVR applications might have a better opinion on these controllers.

I was unable to perform the standard FOV test in Steam because of the insanely bad tracking of the controllers. Trying to position the markers at the FOV limits would cause tracking loss, and they would just jump all over the place. What I can say is that while in Microsoft Flight Simulator, the horizontal FOV is slightly better than the Aero, and the vertical FOV is much larger. This really helps with immersion. To put this into an easy-to-visualize way, here is what this video would look like on the XR-4 and here it is on the Aero. Going from the XR-4 to any of my other headsets makes you realize you’re in VR because you’re viewing everything through a box. It’s one of those “you need to see it to believe it” scenarios, and no amount of description will properly convey the difference.

As Varjo mentions on their product page, the clarity of the optic spans the full FOV, and this is one thing they got 100% right. You can’t really tell any sort of distortion when looking into the corners. The default for most headsets is to put the clearest point in the middle of your vision and sacrifice the corners. This causes god rays and other distortions that make the edges blurry. But not in the XR-4. This is the second you-need-to-see-it-to-believe-it scenario and something Varjo can be proud of.

Performance

When it comes to performance, the Aero and XR-4 both deliver outstanding visual experiences, but the XR-4's features like eye tracking and improved vertical FOV provide a noticeably more immersive experience, especially in simulation environments. The XR-4's automatic IPD adjustment and clear optics across the entire field of view are significant upgrades, enhancing comfort and visual fidelity during extended use. However, the XR-4's subpar controller ergonomics and the poor passthrough camera quality are notable downsides, especially considering its high price point. Additionally, the build quality concerns and cumbersome touch bar controls detract from the overall user experience.

Ultimately, while the XR-4's advanced features and improved FOV offer a superior experience for certain applications, its high cost and several practical drawbacks mean that potential buyers should carefully consider whether its benefits justify the investment. For those deeply immersed in simulation environments, the XR-4 could be a game-changer, but for general VR use, the Aero might still be the better, more cost-effective choice.

Lego!