Curupira
Addicted to Fun and Learning
And in this instance, might I add, the counsel on your signature is even more reassuring.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Moondrop Para 2 Planar Headphone Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
And in this instance, might I add, the counsel on your signature is even more reassuring.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
When I modified the Fosi i5 by applying damping material in front and back of a similar 'open' and large membrane helped a lot.
(see modification section below the review)
diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com
(see modification section below the review)
i5
back to Fosi Audioback to measurementshome published: Aug-15-2025, updated Sept-15-2025 NO SMOOTHING is applied to the shown plots. Most measurement sites have some smoothing applied which ‘irons f…
diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com
OP
- Thread Starter
- #104
I don't think we know. The headphone naturally bounces sound between one's body/fixture back to itself and repeat. This may create pleasing spatial effects or some kind of comb filtering as seen in measurements. Also, on the fixture this effect may be worse than on someone's head with the reflections from cheeks.
Carlo2AC
Active Member
What amp did you purchase friend?
Rincewind42
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2025
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 8
I'm quite interested in this headphone, but I'm also a pragmatic person, so for me the questions are:
1. Para 1 costs $510 (down from $548) in Australia currently, the Para 2 goes for $770. So the 2 is 50% more expensive. Is there really a big difference between the two? I mean perceptible difference. Especially if I'd EQ it anyway.
2. General longevity. I'd expect a headphone costing more than $300-400 to last decades, but okay, at least a decade. I guess we just have no data with these new Chinese companies and brand new products, am I right there? Might last 20 years, 10, or 3, for all we know.
I read "ultra-thin diaphgram" and I see red flashing lights. I've had my Fostex T50RP mk2's since 2011 and they've been through a lot... I certainly don't baby them and humidity can be high here. Absolutely zero issues whatsoever, so I'm looking for comparable longevity of 10 years plus at minimum.
1. Para 1 costs $510 (down from $548) in Australia currently, the Para 2 goes for $770. So the 2 is 50% more expensive. Is there really a big difference between the two? I mean perceptible difference. Especially if I'd EQ it anyway.
2. General longevity. I'd expect a headphone costing more than $300-400 to last decades, but okay, at least a decade. I guess we just have no data with these new Chinese companies and brand new products, am I right there? Might last 20 years, 10, or 3, for all we know.
I read "ultra-thin diaphgram" and I see red flashing lights. I've had my Fostex T50RP mk2's since 2011 and they've been through a lot... I certainly don't baby them and humidity can be high here. Absolutely zero issues whatsoever, so I'm looking for comparable longevity of 10 years plus at minimum.
Last edited:
From my research, the biggest ones is going to be sensitivity and pads. The Para 1 is 80db/mW, the Para 2 is about 85db/mW, which can be attributed to the new magnets. The Para 1 uses its own pad, while the Para 2 uses Cosmo pads and comes with a second set of different pads. Allegedly, this is basically a Cosmo in Para chassis. On a Qudelix 5k, that caps volume at 103 and 108 db (~230 mW max output.)
I happened to be interested in Qudelix 5K's Output Profile information on its app's Volume tab. This information simply assumes that the input signal is at 0 dBFS which is lowered by the global precut in PEQ. There is no other consideration.
So, the 108 to 109 dB max SPL (Amir's measured efficiency is 86 dBSPL/mW at 8 ohm) is reached only at the peak of a PEQ transfer function in bass. With PEQ applied, SPL in our ear's sensitive frequency range (200 Hz to 5 kHz) would be about 6 to 7 dB below that. Adding to this, crest factors (RMS peak to average ratio) in most music recordings range from 12 to 18 dB. So, the maximum achievable RMS SPL with Q5K for actual music listening in the 200 Hz to 5 kHz range without bass distortion would be roughly 84 to 90 dB SPL. Conservatively 84 dB SPL. This is certainly acceptable.
Last edited:
do you know how loudness normalizing calculates here? Most music streamers use it at around -13 LUFS.
SoyotaTupra
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2025
- Messages
- 5
- Likes
- 2
Too bad these aren't mod-friendly. It would be interesting to see what happy accidents a grill mod creates on these. I'm going to hold out for Chinese new year and see if I can snag a pair on sale.
Rincewind42
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2025
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 8
Okay, I've just compared the distortion measurements of this one to that of the Fostex T50RP models on diyaudioheaven. Even on the old Fostex models, the distortion stays below 1% in the low regions and below 0.5% in the midrange and treble. Check this out, for example:
diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com
The review kinda implies the low distortion figures are a big deal here, but then they're below the audible threshold on the Fostexes too. So I'm like, what's the big deal then? 2x, 5x, 10x, etc. lower doesn't mean much if we can't hear the difference anyway (even after EQing).
I'm just trying to understand what this would bring to the table compared to the Fostexes that I have, based on the published measurements. By looking at the distortion figures, I guess not much after EQing both to sound roughly the same? 10% difference? Maybe?
T50RP mk3
back to Fostex back to measurements home Published: Feb-7-2017, updated: Jan-02-2022 NO SMOOTHING is applied to the shown plots. Most measurement sites have some smoothing applied which R…
diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com
The review kinda implies the low distortion figures are a big deal here, but then they're below the audible threshold on the Fostexes too. So I'm like, what's the big deal then? 2x, 5x, 10x, etc. lower doesn't mean much if we can't hear the difference anyway (even after EQing).
I'm just trying to understand what this would bring to the table compared to the Fostexes that I have, based on the published measurements. By looking at the distortion figures, I guess not much after EQing both to sound roughly the same? 10% difference? Maybe?
The Zero 2 is excellent in this regard too.Sure, we don't live in an ideal world. Everything is a compromise.
But still, "for a handful of dollars" you can have almost undistorted bass and sub bass on a level very hardly, if at all, achievable with loudspeakers at any price.
And, no bass modes and other room related problems.
Just one example:
Truthear GATE $17 IEM Review
This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Truthear GATE IEM. Money was kindly donated for me to purchase it from Amazon for US $17.59. Not much to say about them other than they fit my ears very comfortably with the largest silicone tips included. Let's see how it...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #115
How do you know this? And why shouldn't I praise a headphone every time it demonstrates lower distortion than vast majority of the ones I test?
In my description, I used a 'crest factor' which is an old, informal measure. Yes, strictly speaking, LUFS or LKFS is a better, standardized measure of loudness---to see how loudness is measured, see this article (the last part). Most music streamers' standards are -14 (e.g., Spotify) to -16 (Apple Music) LUFS. But these are their upper bounds. They normalize in the lower direction---i.e., they do not increase volume of softly recorded music (e.g., classical music) which can lead to clipping.
So, when you select a headphone amp and want to be conservative, assuming -20 LUFS seems to be reasonable. Then you need to consider a PEQ effect. Therefore, in the case of Para 2, if you can live with average 82 dB SPL, you may consider Qudelix 5K (balanced output). However, if you need to listen more loudly to softly recorded material, it may not provide adequate drive power. But it will play most music tracks quite loudly.
Last edited:
Rincewind42
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2025
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 8
Oh, I didn't mean to criticise your conclusions, that was not my intention. Maybe I worded my post in a way that can be read as argumentative, apologies.
Around -40 dB of distortion (THD 1%) under the signal can be regarded as "transparent" on most material for most people, then on low bass it's not really noticeable. I'm just trying to figure out if the lower distortion measurements of this headphone would result in audible improvements for me (or for most people), because if not, I'd rather not spend $500-$700 AUD, that's all
Assuming that the big difference can come from the distortion figures because I can EQ them to sound about the same frequency response wise anyway. But maybe I'm completely wrong there
Update: Okay, I've looked into this a bit more, and found this informative post of yours from 2017: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audibility-of-distortion.706117/post-13835511
That explains it well, so lower levels of distortion are indeed desirable and -40 dB can be audible depending on context. Hey, I'm still learning about all this
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Yes.
RME even specifies at 8ohm load:
Output level at 0 dBFS, Low Power, load 8 Ohm or up: +7 dBu (1.73 V)
You can reach 110dB peaks which is pretty loud.
If you're "pragmatic", try to see what the Hifiman Edition XS goes for in AUSD - in USD, the XS + a Capra Audio strap to fix the comfort is about half the price of the Para 2 and responds just as well to EQ.
And I say this as someone who is not a big fan of HFM generally - but you really can't argue with the Edition XS on value if you're gonna EQ.
Similar threads
