Moondrop Para 2 Planar Headphone Review

[Jcrow]

Voted poor.
Parametric equalization does not come in the pack.

I think voting poor was a little harsh. As far as I can tell, this is one of the better measuring open back headphones reviewed here (with or without eq). Amir even suggested as such.

I have seen headphones reviewed costing as much as 3x this one and not measure as well without EQ. Honestly, you should consider changing your rating based on this.

Your subsequent comparison of the Genelec Monitor I think is not a valid one. The main issue there was not enough volume. For this product, your issue is the use of EQ to bring the frequency response to an acceptable level. One user intervention involves the user physically moving because the volume is at its limit. For this product, the volume, of certain frequencies, can indeed be amplified beyond baseline levels. Without any substantial penalty paid in distortion at that. For the monitors, the problem cannot be fixed if one does not want to, or cannot, move closer. For the Para II, the user can simply apply EQ. A function that anyone investing this much money into headphones surely has access to.

The measured level of distortion is another reason why I think a 'poor' rating is inappropriate. The measured level was substantially lower compared to other headphones.
For a lot people who care about sound quality, it is recognised that EQ is a neccesity. For me personally, I don;t care too much about the the un-eq'd frequency response. It's all about how the product, whether speakers or headphones, handles the amount of gain I apply to certain frequencies in order to achieve the desired response. The Para II seems to handle it better than most.
Of course, the ideal product would not require any user intervention in the form of eq. But I haven't ever seen one. So, it seems odd to take exception to this particular headphone.

 

[A Surfer]

Needing some equalization is absolutely a non issue period. Almost every headphone needs some equalization. This headphone has solid tonality out of the box, apparently and the fact that it can be equalized so effectively without a distortion penalty is why it is an excellent headphone.

 

[yo!]

A fine headphone as it seems. Not excellent caused by the rough material edges and boxy layout. The low impedance is to take in account and some people don't like membrane timbre of foils, albeit great distortion figures. I don't expect this to be true with the moondrop.

As many practical users, I too see the need to EQ every headphone and can't imagine listening without correction.

At least above 3 kHz the amplitude is different for all individual head- /earshapes, canal lengths and wearing habits. Peaking frequencies can vary half a octave up or down or act totally different.
IMHO correction by ear in the hights is the only way to do this proper (checking for individual resonance peaks / hearing). Not the fanciest measurement setup can do this. Below 3k measurements are precise and easy to do.

 

[thewas]

Here how it measures on a B&K 5128:

Source of above:

Resolve also really liked it, even more with the FiiO FT1 Pro pads, below is a LMM of his above review video:

• (00:00) Introduction: host compares the Para 2 to the Moondrop Cosmo, positioning it as a “baby Cosmo” at half the price.
• (00:38) Build & Comfort: the Para 2 retains a large “cursed” headband and is fairly heavy (~500 g), but a wide suspension strap helps distribute weight. The stock pads feel narrow and loose; swapping them improves fit.
• (03:20) Cable & Drivability: comes with a flat cable that tangles easily. Impedance is very linear, so sound won’t change much across amplifiers, though it’s a bit harder to drive to loud volumes.
• (04:18) Sound with stock pads: similar to Cosmo but brighter and leaner. High detail and spaciousness, but vocals can feel hollow and lacks warmth.
• (06:23) Pad-rolling magic: swapping to FiiO FT1 Pro pads greatly improves balance—mids are fuller, treble smoother, and the lean character is tamed.
• (09:14) Driver traits: it has a low resonance frequency and large diaphragm, meaning introducing a slight seal leak (e.g. via glasses) can boost bass rather than kill it.
• (11:43) Verdict: Cosmo is still slightly better by default, but Para 2 offers huge tuning flexibility via pads and EQ.
• (13:00) Usage advice: not the best pick for listeners seeking neutrality; rather, it’s for those who appreciate a detailed, colored sound—and are willing to tweak.

 

[Curupira]

I don't think anything in the research involved sub-bass.

I don't think it played into the target, but I do recall Dr. @Sean Olive mentioning a paper that hinted at the preference for more subbass in earphones to compensate the lack of torso physicality/feeling that is natural with speakers and real life scenarios.

 

[brood2022]

new 335 doller in China

There are headphones that are annoying without EQ, or super dull. This one is not that. There are also headphones that have a lot of distortion. Again, this one is not that. While all else being equal, I too want a headphone without EQ, as @respice finem mentions, this headphone brings a different set of factor when it comes to comfort.

In some sense, it is an alternative to Sennheiser HD6XX. It is more expensive but I think has much better spatial effects.

I checked the prices. Currently, in the Chinese market, it's $335 for a new one and $285 for a used one.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Jaw-dropping distortion and lots of potential locked and loaded with that. Waiting for the inevitable EQ-is-optional-for-mostly-on-target-sound Para 3--or the eager competitor who beats them to the punch.

 

[MayaTlab]

At least above 3 kHz the amplitude is different for all individual head- /earshapes, canal lengths and wearing habits. Peaking frequencies can vary half a octave up or down or act totally different.
IMHO correction by ear in the hights is the only way to do this proper (checking for individual resonance peaks / hearing). Not the fanciest measurement setup can do this. Below 3k measurements are precise and easy to do.

To be more precise how much confidence you can have for your own case in published measurements done on a standard fixture varies quite a bit depending on the headphones' design. For large, open front volume HPs (ex HD800) it's indeed very much correct that up to 3kHz or so you can have a pretty high confidence in the charts, and for these it might also apply. But for passive closed backs, or some ANC headphones, things can be a bit more complicated (for example for Bose ANC over-ears, you can have a very high confidence in the results below 800Hz, and a very low confidence above, or for a passive closed back like the HD820, you can disregard entirely measurements in the bass range as it will wildly vary across individuals).

In-situ measurements with mics in your ears can also be performed to inform your PEQ filtres, but this is opening a big can of worms that might not be needed to already get some pretty decent improvements with PEQ if the headphones you chose are a good, stable platform to EQ from.

 

[Jcrow]

I’m considering these headphones. However, I’m interested in getting headphones with a ‘wide soundstage’ as I have to watch movies using headphones so I don’t wake up my wife or kids. I am also considering the 800s, for its spatial capabilities, but would the Para II be a good enough alternative (much more attractive price)? Also, would the spatial differences be significant enough between the two, or would it be more marginal?
I do use a bit of cross feed, but it's not exactly a game changer for me.

 

[solderdude]

Spatial qualities can be 'improved' by using plug-ins or software (not just X-feed)

The truth (that is rarely told) is that 'spatial qualities' are something your brain cooks up from 2 sounds coming from the side of your head.

How do you hear headphone 'soundstage'

This poll is born out of a 'soundstage / imaging' discussion. I am just curious how people hear headphone 'soundstage'. Note this is with 'normal' recordings so NO binaural recordings and without any processing/plug-ins like crossfeed, stereo enhancers and 3D emulators. Just a plain...

www.audiosciencereview.com

To get good spatial sound it needs to come from the front and with a 'coupling' between left and right (cross-feed).
This narrows the stereo image but makes it a bit better with some recordings.

HD800(S) or any other headphone isn't going to magically transform the stereo image/depth. Regardless of what one reads here and there.
Sure it is not as 'narrow' as the HD600/650 but not 'magically better'.

The Para nor HD800 isn't going to offer what you seek. It is a brain thing.
There are people perceiving depth etc. but their brain is wired differently.
How this might work out for you ... only you can tell.
Maybe it is 'better' to you, maybe it is similar.

The headphone I used most is the HD800 (with EQ) but not because of the stereo imaging but because it has a nice stable and realistic imaging and high sound quality.

 

[tunwen]

I’m considering these headphones. However, I’m interested in getting headphones with a ‘wide soundstage’ as I have to watch movies using headphones so I don’t wake up my wife or kids. I am also considering the 800s, for its spatial capabilities, but would the Para II be a good enough alternative (much more attractive price)? Also, would the spatial differences be significant enough between the two, or would it be more marginal?
I do use a bit of cross feed, but it's not exactly a game changer for me.

I once owned the HD800s and now I have Para2, so I think I can offer some direct experience here.
In my opinion, for cinematic content, the Para 2 after EQ is not just a good enough alternative—it's arguably better.
The HD800s certainly delivers a "wide" soundstage. However, that width can feel artificial as if you're consciously aware of the "effect." It's impressively spacious, but not always naturally immersive. Additionally, the HD800s exhibits significant distortion in the low-frequency range, making the bass sound less clean and clear during playback.
The Para 2, once properly EQ'd, presents a soundstage that is just as exceptionally wide and open, but with a more natural and cohesive character. For movies, this translates into a more believable and immersive experience, rather than just a technically "wide" one. For the price difference, the Para 2's performance post-EQ is truly remarkable.

Speaking of crossfeed, if you are using EqualizerAPO like I do, I've put together a "turn-key" configuration file specifically for the Para 2 that includes both EQ and a subtle crossfeed setting that I find works beautifully.
You are welcome to try my setup. Here’s how to use it:
1. Download the attachment Para2_EQ_with_crossfeed_for_EAPO.txt
2. Find your EqualizerAPO config folder. It's usually located at C:\Program Files\EqualizerAPO\config, but your installation path might be different.
3. Place the Para2_EQ_with_crossfeed_for_EAPO.txt file inside that config folder.
4. Open the EqualizerAPO Configuration Editor.
5. Click the green + (Add filter) icon and go to Control -> Include.
6. A blue folder icon will appear. Click that folder icon to browse for Para2_EQ_with_crossfeed_for_EAPO.txt.
7. Select the Para2_EQ_with_crossfeed_for_EAPO.txt file you just placed in the config folder.
Now the EQ and crossfeed will be active. Let me know what you think if you give it a shot.

Hope this helps with your decision .

 

[renaudrenaud]

 

[Heinrich]

Deviations from 'target' are expected from every specimen for pretty clear reasons. Each individual is asked to e/q to taste, virtually no headphone can possibly fit a person's physiological parameters spot on. Remember, the 'target' is an expected average only, and people differ a fair bit in this regard.
Comes to have good, solid taste, and means of judging the outcome of equalization with confidence. We expect that from audiophiles, don't we ;-)

 

[Zekbone]

Here how it measures on a B&K 5128:

View attachment 482181

Source of above:

Resolve also really liked it, even more with the FiiO FT1 Pro pads, below is a LMM of his above review video:

• (00:00) Introduction: host compares the Para 2 to the Moondrop Cosmo, positioning it as a “baby Cosmo” at half the price.
• (00:38) Build & Comfort: the Para 2 retains a large “cursed” headband and is fairly heavy (~500 g), but a wide suspension strap helps distribute weight. The stock pads feel narrow and loose; swapping them improves fit.
• (03:20) Cable & Drivability: comes with a flat cable that tangles easily. Impedance is very linear, so sound won’t change much across amplifiers, though it’s a bit harder to drive to loud volumes.
• (04:18) Sound with stock pads: similar to Cosmo but brighter and leaner. High detail and spaciousness, but vocals can feel hollow and lacks warmth.
• (06:23) Pad-rolling magic: swapping to FiiO FT1 Pro pads greatly improves balance—mids are fuller, treble smoother, and the lean character is tamed.
• (09:14) Driver traits: it has a low resonance frequency and large diaphragm, meaning introducing a slight seal leak (e.g. via glasses) can boost bass rather than kill it.
• (11:43) Verdict: Cosmo is still slightly better by default, but Para 2 offers huge tuning flexibility via pads and EQ.
• (13:00) Usage advice: not the best pick for listeners seeking neutrality; rather, it’s for those who appreciate a detailed, colored sound—and are willing to tweak.

Its funny he uses the FT1 Pro pads, this headphone seems like more of a bigger brother to the FT1 Pro than the FT7 does. Built in Capra strap mod, similar very low clamping force, similarly super large planar driver, true steel chassis instead of plastic, Similar sound signature that needs EQ but the FT1 Pro has relatively low excursion limits that hard limits bass to ~96db while this has low distortion all the way to 114db.

 

[Roland301]

Thank you for the review. The flat bass is somewhat inherent to the closed front volume, open back volume planar design. They would have to use something like a resistor like DCA headphones did. The trade off is generally using a driver with a lower resonance frequency so they are more tolerant of seal breakage, allowing for low bass with no roll off for most users. Practically speaking, it is probably easier to find a way to boost the bass than it is to do a full EQ for the sound changes of a broken seal of a headphone that uses a different design.

I tend to go for headphones with this design as getting a good seal is near impossible on my head.

I agree with this. I think flat bass is fine and even desirable on an open planar for the reasons you mentioned.
Measuring perfectly on-target with a dummy head doesn't matter if it means less consistency in actual use.
The important thing is to look for inconsistencies in the response which point to more serious design flaws that aren't as easy to correct.

A simple bass shelf EQ filter is very easy to add even with more limited EQ functionality, and there are products that implement it in hardware as well.
That way it is also adjustable to preference.

 

[Shane D]

I don't think anything in the research involved sub-bass. The tracks used in Harman research did not have such content. It is there that I find the enhancement most impressive. You get a ton of deep bass response without making the overall sound boomy. My sense is that vast majority of people would prefer to have this sub-bass response.

One of my amps is an iFi Pro iCAN. I use its bass boost function on almost all of my headphones.
This amp, with bass boost and 3D sound effects, combined with a lot of power made the HE6se V2's magical, to me at least.

I bet the bass boost would really wake these up. I am curious to try.

 

[Shane D]

View attachment 482336

View attachment 482337

Wow, I think I would buy these right now for $462.83 (Canadian $'s).

 

[Robbo99999]

This is a review, listening test, EQ and detailed measurements of the Moondrop Para 2 planar magnetic headphone. It was kindly drop shipped by a member and costs US $500.
View attachment 481816
I can't say this is an attractive design but it is not ugly either. I wish they had deburred the edges of the headband mount as it has a rough feel. Otherwise, its low weight combined with low clamp pressure, makes the Para 2 very comfortable to wear. Thoughtful cabling is provided in the form of flat and lightweight wire terminating in 4.4 mm connector. A nice adapter cable is then provided to go from that to 3.5mm if needed.

It was a pleasure to read the company webpage for it as it is full of detailed engineering explanation including FEA optimization and measurements. Let's see if we can confirm them.

Moondrop Para 2 Headphone Measurements
As usual, we start with our headphone frequency response measurement and comparison to our target:
View attachment 481817
As noted, fitment on the GRAS 45CA was easy as if the headphone is made for it. The response lacks bass boost and some variations from 500 Hz on:
View attachment 481818

The measurement matches company documentation although they show a peak 3+ kHz and another around 9 kHz:
View attachment 481819
They would be better off adopting our target as it is a much closer match to the headphone response.

I was stunned at the low harmonic distortion:
View attachment 481820

Even at 114 dBSPL it doesn't blink. This mean we can EQ the bass without fear.

Absolute level distortion shows signs of optimization and matches company measurements:
View attachment 481821

Group delay is very messy though, likely due to internal reflections:
View attachment 481822

Impedance is flat (good) but is also extremely low:
View attachment 481823

Sensitivity is a bit less than average:
View attachment 481824

Comfortable listening level is -37 dB on my Topping DX5II so you don't need a lot of power to drive it.

Moondrop Para 2 Listening Test and EQ
I switched from my everyday headphone to Para 2 in the middle of a track I was listening to. Even though it was not at all a bass heavy track, I immediately noticed loss of bass. Otherwise, the sound was pleasant and you could certainly use the headphone. But put some salt and pepper in there in the form of a few filters and you experience some of the best i have heard in headphone and possibly speaker:
View attachment 481827

The bass came alive like nobody's business. Not only was it there, it was there is such clean character that made me notice time and time again. Spatial qualities are excellent which translated to every note taking its space around an oval outside of my ear. The clarity is unbelievable. Shutting off all the filters left me with sound that was good, but lost everything impressive about the headphone with EQ.

As soon as I took the review picture, I wore them again just to experience the superb sound one can get out of this combination.

Conclusions
If Moondrop had not chosen a flat bass response, the Para 2 could have come close to some of the best headphones I have tested or heard. Fortunately with just a few filters, you wake up this headphone to produce some of the best sound you can experience. Combine it with its comfort and you have an incredible combination. I guess science and engineering works.

I am going to recommend the Moondrop Para 2. If you don't use EQ with it though, i will personally come to your home and take it away from you! You deserve to hear what high fidelity is about once you combine Para 2 with EQ.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

The different frequency response from the company is because it's measured on a different fixture (B&K 4128), but I'm sure you know that.

Nice headphone, certainly after EQ!

 

[amirm]

I am also considering the 800s, for its spatial capabilities, but would the Para II be a good enough alternative (much more attractive price)?

I never get frontal projection with headphones so if that is what you are looking for, I can't answer. What I do perceive is spacious instrument separation on the right content, to the left and right of my ears, and on this department, this is one of the best. My memory of the HD800s is long faded but do recall that one also impressing me in this regard.

 

[renaudrenaud]

Wow, I think I would buy these right now for $462.83 (Canadian $'s).

From my part I have the previous version. But surprisingly, I prefer to use the 20$ iems Amir tested here and there. So I am not sure I want this one.