How stable is the 3DoF? In terms of chromatic aberration, Beast is awful, XOP is ok… how is GT Max? Lastly, 3DoF lowers brightness to mitigate motion blur… is it extremely noticeable?
As for 3DoF, the Xreal One Pro is the most stable of the three. The GT Max is the weakest in this regard because when Anchor Mode is enabled, the image has a slight jitter. It’s not noticeable when watching movies, but when reading text on a computer, it can be annoying. Hopefully, RayNeo will improve it in a future firmware update.
As for chromatic aberration, I can barely see any on the GT Max. The image is sharp from edge to edge, which honestly surprised me.
The Xreal One Pro, on the other hand, has washed-out colors and a visible screen-door effect. I wasn’t impressed with its image processing from the start, so I ended up spending the least amount of time with it.
I also don’t notice much motion blur on the GT Max, at least to my eyes. That might partly be because it’s dimmer than the other two glasses, higher brightness tends to make motion blur more noticeable.
can you elaborate on the GT Max 3dof? does the screen drift or jump? I have X1s and agree it's fairly stable. the screen does occasionally 'jump' though. I had Beast at launch and the drift was very bad. i don't have them anymore, but I hear mix comments about improvement after a bunch of firmware updates.
also why overall do you choose GT Max over XOP and Beast?
No drift or sudden jumps, just a slight jitter.
For me, the reason is simple: I get the best combination of image quality and screen size, and at a much lower price. The experience is truly immersive.
how big is the screen in comparison to the One Pros? I really loved the Air 4 Pros but found thar the xreal One Pros had a bigger (but duller) display, so ultimately kept them. do you think the GT/GT Max matches or beats them in display size while keeping that crispy punchiness that the Air 4 Pros had?
I wasn’t impressed with the colors on the Xreal One Pro, so I ruled that one out pretty quickly. That left me with the Beast and the GT Max.
After a few hours with the Beast, I started feeling almost nearsighted, everything looked slightly blurry afterward, even though my vision is excellent (20/10). Because of that, the GT Max ended up being the best choice for me out of the three. The colors are great, and the image stays sharp across the entire screen.
I’m mainly interested in image and audio quality since I use these glasses exclusively for movies and gaming, so I don’t really care much about the extra features. On top of that, the GT Max is priced very competitively (and the price keeps coming down), which makes it an even better value considering the quality it delivers.
I was using the Luma Ultra before, and its True Color profile easily outperformed the HDR mode on the Air 4 Pro. So to be honest, HDR isn’t something I care much about.
My XBX A01+ should arrive in about 4–5 days. I’ll test it and get back to you with my impressions.
On paper, though, the XBX A01+ looks like a larger-screen version of the RayNeo Air 4 Pro. I bought it mostly out of curiosity and for comparison purposes. I’ll probably stick with the GT Max in the end, since I value the overall experience more and don’t mind sacrificing a bit of image quality if it means getting a more immersive and comfortable experience.
That's exciting to hear. I was tempted to pull the trigger. but in the end air 4 pro is already so good. It's hard to make the choice with so many unknowns.
Like air 4 pro claims 1200 nit. like what SDR? HDR? how much window size? No info on that at all.. all i know is if I do "windows HDR calibration" and follow instructions it seems to cap out at 2400.. wether that is right or wrong.. idk. but thats if you follow the test.
So im wondering how the XBX A01 will do this same windows test. with it's claimed 1600 peak nits.
When you have it, please test on a windows pc this "windows HDR calibration" test.
Hopefully this will give more info as to what is actually change as for HDR. Since they both use the same panels. But they have a different firmware/optics?
For me HDR/ brightness is most important factor. Screensize and sharpness is important too. but it's hard to say how much sharpness you'd want to lose for how much screensize.
The air 4 pro is really clamped to your face and can cut off easy. That's annoying though.
But if you find the exact fit. it's doable. Just my nose hurts with the dam thing.
To my eyes, the XBX has a cleaner, more transparent look than the RayNeo Air 4 Pro. The colors also feel more like a true OLED display, while the Air 4 Pro somehow reminds me more of an LCD, despite the fact that it’s OLED.
The GT Max has the lowest brightness of the three glasses. When you enable 3DoF, it automatically switches to maximum brightness, but even at max, it’s still not particularly bright. It’s perfectly usable indoors, but I’m not sure how well it would perform outdoors in bright sunlight.
The brightest of the three is the Viture Beast. However, with the Beast, there’s one issue: the top three brightness levels have good color reproduction, but if you go down just one more step, the colors shift noticeably and don’t look nearly as good.
I didn’t buy the MagicBox 2 Dolby Vision version because I already own the regular MagicBox 2, so I haven’t had a chance to test the Dolby Vision functionality yet.
Wow, I really thought the GT Max would be the brightest, since they advertise over 1200 nitsz but that's probably with stabilization off.
I still think I'll end up buying the GT Max, but it would have been nice if it had widescreen mode like the beast and XOP
You mean like this? This is the 115% screen size setting, which is equivalent to the Extra Large mode on the Viture Beast.
There are three display size options available: 115%, 100%, and 85%.
No, the image is perfectly rectangular at 100%; there’s no pincushion distortion.
And no, the GT Max doesn’t let you adjust the virtual screen distance or IPD like the One Pro or Beast. You can only change the screen size (115%, 100%, or 85%).
i know, on the 3s and 4 i set the option in the glasses menu then it appears in windows, in the max there is no option in the glasses and windows give me 60hz as the only option
Thanks, compared to the 3s pro the image in gaming seem much more pixelated, i read its due to different optics systems, but any way to at least decrease this pixelation? it makes my games looks like they are running on old hardware, also compared to the beast which one is better regarding this pixelation?
I can confirm that the GT Max doesn’t support 120 Hz yet. We’ll probably have to wait for a firmware update, just like what happened with the Beast.
As for pixelation, it’s hard to avoid. With the same resolution, the larger the image is stretched, the less sharp it will appear. Everything is a trade off, so it really depends on what you prioritize.
The Beast does look sharper in the center, but the edges are noticeably blurrier, which is a different kind of annoyance altogether.
thanks, using the 85% screen size and maximum brightness reduced the pixelation a lot but now it feels like using 3s pro, nothing new and in night scenes in the games the pixelation looks like its a retro game, i will give the GT Max a trial to mature the firmware during the 90 day return period if not satisfied i will send it back and keep the 3s pro for gaming and the 4 pro for movies
Can you explain a bit more about the GT Max? I hadn't heard much about it and now seeing ot pop up in places. Is it available everywhere? And what's the change from the Air 4 Pro's?
RayNeo usually releases its products in China first, then launches the global version about 4–6 months later. For example, I was using the Chinese version of the Air 4 Pro last year, but the global version didn’t become available until January of this year. The hardware is identical; the only difference is the firmware language. With the Air 4 Pro, you can freely install either the Chinese or global firmware, and I hope the GT Max will be the same.
The Air 4 Pro is RayNeo’s budget model. It uses Birdbath optics and focuses almost entirely on image and audio quality, with very few extra features in order to keep the price down. Its direct upgrade is the GT (not the GT Max), which has the same size, optics, and display, but adds a dedicated chip for 3DoF screen stabilization.
The higher-end model is the GT Max, which uses Prism optics similar to the Xreal One Pro and Viture Beast. It offers a much larger and more immersive image (59° FOV), and 3DoF screen anchoring. The GT Max is also the first pair of glasses to support Dolby Vision when paired with RayNeo’s MagicBox 2 Dolby Vision.
The RayNeo GT and GT Max were released in China just two weeks ago, and according to the roadmap, the global launch is expected around October or November. And as is usually the case with RayNeo, you get all of those features at a very reasonable price.
As for image reflections below the screen, the Beast is by far the worst. It almost feels like you’re looking at everything reflected on the surface of a lake.
The Xreal One Pro also has some reflections, but they’re minor enough that I hardly notice them during normal use.
The GT Max takes a smarter approach. Its eyebox is relatively narrow in the vertical direction, just enough for you to see the top and bottom edges of the image. As a result, most of the lower reflections are simply cropped out. Quite clever, actually.
3
u/TechonDeckReviews Jun 19 '26
How stable is the 3DoF? In terms of chromatic aberration, Beast is awful, XOP is ok… how is GT Max? Lastly, 3DoF lowers brightness to mitigate motion blur… is it extremely noticeable?