Moondrop - COSMO Nanoscale Ultra-thin Planar Flagship Headphone

I've had COSMO for a while now and I wouldn't keep them with stock or EP100A or Yaxi TH900 pads. But I love them with Dekoni Elite Hybrid HE pads. It's like the final form of Hifiman round design. One of the most tonally balanced headphones I've tried. Still a bit warmer but engaging, detailed, spacious, and fairly comfortable if you have smaller ears. Great all-rounder.

Their Cosmo (only moondrop product I've tried) seemed fine to me. All metallic build. Very heavy, but felt solid. Just wasn't a fan of the tuning. Infact, I absoloutly hated it with the stock pads. The new Laputa is supposed to be a big departure in both build quality and sound. Very positive reviews so far. Moondrop started as a small family business. So they couldn't hire the best engineers and quality managers, and it showed on many of their products. Now it's a high-tech enterprise, which can afford to hire some of the industry's best. For Fiio, their FT7 is fine in terms of build quality. I have their FX17 IEM, the best-built IEMs I've ever tried. Solid polished titanium. Their amps/dacs are pretty solid too

awesome review i'm really curious about their new Skycity (Laputa) headphones. I didn't like their Cosmo with the stock pads at all, despite its very capable driver technology (it's similar to a Susvara in some ways).

From everything I have owned and heard, I would elect three headphones as my overall best and favorites: the DCA E3, the ZMF Caldera Open, and the Audeze LCD-4z. The E3s excel with raw precision and separation, the Calderas with spatial flexibility, tonal transparency, and macro dynamism, and the 4zs with bringing a bit of every trait together into one package. All of these need EQ to sound their best, the E3s the least and the 4zs the most, but even a profile relatively close to neutral reveals each to be amazing in their own ways. For anything below $1000 used, my picks go to the 2021 LCD-2 (and X), Moondrop Cosmo, and Sennheiser HD 800 (also all with EQ).

Sounds like a pretty strategic release (if at an unfortunate time) with very intentional tuning choices across the board. My main interest is how these would compare to the Moondrop Cosmo, given the price is not too far out and both are subtly trying to push the boundaries of value for hifi. Fiio has certainly been doing that more recently with the FT1s, FT1 Pros, and now these. The FT7s are likely more ideal for a greater range of head shapes, specifically smaller heads. From experience so far, I find the Cosmos to have plenty of pad swapping potential compared to other headphones, as their stock tuning makes for a great baseline. The flat, slightly-downsloping bass and smooth treble shape makes pad swap (tuning) changes not too dramatic and keeps EQability very easy. I want to make a separate post about the Cosmos in the future since they make for a unique and appealing proposition.

I thought the Moondrop Cosmo was a very pleasant surprise when I owned them. I EQ the hell out of every headphone in my collection since I aim for HRTF-neutral sound, and the Cosmos were a rare exception that almost convinced me to not do so. I settled on the ZMF Caldera thick top-perf pads for them, and they were just very easygoing and non-fatiguing. There was a comfortable darkness that still allowed very good technical qualities to come through. Even nicer that simple bass and treble shelves (plus a 13khz reduction) allowed them to become that extra bit better. It's not surprising they reminded me a lot of my EQed Caldera Opens, though I find those still slightly edge out the Cosmos for a sense of timbral realism and revealing differences in how my music is produced. I could definitely see someone preferring the Cosmos though, mainly for being a bit softer and more relaxed. The other pleasant surprise recently has been the Hedd D1. My EQ adjustments for them were actually quite predictable, in that their FR follows my perceived HRTF dip/peak trends above 5khz very nicely. I essentially had to do nothing below 4khz besides a bass shelf. After those adjustments, they become the one open back dynamic that I think is roughly on equal grounds with planars. No big compromises in any one area, not even the subbass. My previous references for dynamics were the HD 800 and 2022 Focal Utopias, and I think the D1s are overall better than both, all after being EQed. Can't speak for the Austrian Audio Composer, but those also weren't as comfortable when I demoed them roughly two years ago. In general, I've found the $600-800 range to be ideal for headphones that are close enough to my more expensive favorites that one could be fully satisfied with them (mainly the HD 800 used, Cosmo, and D1). I imagine the Arya Stealth and Organic are in that same position for many folks, but Sennheiser and Hedd still seem to be preferable in terms of serviceability and longevity.

Thanks for the comprehensive review! Have some mixed feelings on this, especially with the build. The Para 2's build seemed like a good refinement over the Cosmo and Para 1. But this one's somehow heavier despite the carbon fiber headband and "unveiled" rear volume and doubles down on the loose fit...? I really like the overall look of it though. Sound-wise, the FR gives me AKG K702 vibes (at least with the upper mids)...wondering if it sounds even leaner than the previous iterations?

While the general consensus seems to be that the Cosmo is preferable over the Para 2, I didn't find many direct comparisons between them. So I ended up getting both myself to compare and wanted to share my thoughts. Of course, the big question is going to be "Is the Moondrop Cosmo worth it over the Para 2?" Short answer: Probably not. If you're just looking for bang-for-your-buck, the Para 2 wins hands-down. It's got the kind of "wow" factor that the egg-shaped Hifiman models have, with competitive resolution, a clear, spacious sound, and a sweet tone for female vocals. The Cosmo doesn't have such an obvious "X" factor imo, so that makes it harder to stand out compared to the competition. That said, it does have its own strengths that might be unique enough for people to consider. So the long answer is "well it depends" and hopefully the comparisons below will give a better idea of the Cosmo's character. For reference, I ran these headphones through the Khadas Toneboard DAC and the THX AAA One amp.   # Comparisons to Moondrop Para 2 **Build and Accessories** In terms of accessories, they're pretty much the same. You get the headphones, a cable (braided for Cosmo, flat for Para 2), and an adapter for the 4.4mm connection (6.35mm for Cosmo, 3.5mm for Para 2). While the Para 2's cable is more prone to tangling, I do prefer it over the Cosmo's as the Cosmo's is a bit stiff and heavy. The Cosmo comes in a nicer package with satin-like material inside the box while the Para 2 comes inside a nylon headphone case. Build and design-wise, the two are pretty similar. They use the same lambskin pads (that attach magnetically) and really similar chassis. The Cosmo has some kind of vinyl-feeling material covering the driver while the Para 2's driver is mostly bare under the pads. There are also some minor differences in the patterns for the grill and the headband. One big difference is that the Cosmo has a matte paint finish on it while the Para 2 is just stainless steel. It's very similar to the difference between the Moondrop Kato IEMs (matte vs steel). I wouldn't be surprised if they're just reusing that production process. I think the paint finish looks nicer in-person, there is a little bit of texture to it. But the Cosmo's paint suffers the same problem as Hifiman, which is that adjusting the headband leaves scratch marks. Another difference that's a bit less noticeable is the headband size. I'm not sure if this is unit variation, but the Cosmo has a wider, shorter headband while the Para 2 is narrower and taller. That means I get an extra notch of adjustment on the Cosmo compared to the Para 2. So the Cosmo should be more comfortable, right? In practice, the Cosmo feels worse on my head. The shorter headband creates more of a hotspot than on the Para 2. So even though I can adjust it to a notch that has more clamp force, the pressure on my head becomes unbearable. When it's on a looser fit like the Para 2, that hotspot still persists and the Cosmo's extra 50g of weight is really noticeable. So when it comes to the build and accessories, for me the Para 2 actually wins. It's lighter, more comfortable, and comes with arguably better accessories.   **Sound** So if you look at measurements, the Cosmo just seems like a slightly darker Para 2. But when actually listening to both of them, the difference in tonal balance ended up changing the sound presentation more than I expected. A quick note about power, the Cosmo is harder to drive than the Para 2. It doesn't need as much juice as something like the Hifiman HE6se V2 though. On my setup, the Para 2 needs similar power as the Sennheiser HD6XX to drive while the Cosmo is more similar to the power needed for the older Beyerdynamic DT series (770, 880, 990). Now the immediate difference in the sound is the soundstage. The Cosmo is still above average in size, but it's more intimate feeling than the Para 2. On my head, the Para 2's soundstage extends out to the outer edges of my ears while the Cosmo is closer to my temples. The Para 2 feels more spacious and the imaging less hazy. The Cosmo is pretty similar in terms of lateral imaging (left and right), but it's harder to pick things out front-to-back. Sounds in the background are more subdued on the Cosmo while the Para 2 pushes them forward. If you were at a concert or something, the Cosmo would sound like you're several rows back compared to the Para 2. This also means that the Cosmo ends up sounding more mid-centric. Stuff like vocals and the main body of instruments get more focus than other sounds. The darker tonal balance does mean that the Cosmo's mids sound more full-bodied than the Para 2. That also extends to the Cosmo's bass, which sounds meatier and thicker. However, the bass does seem a bit softer on the edges compared to the Para 2. And I think the reason is because the Para 2 extends a little better into the subbass and the upper harmonics are clearer. But overall, the Cosmo sounds more natural and balanced than the Para 2, which can sound a little too lean and thin, especially with things like male vocals. I would even say the Cosmo sounds more natural than all the Hifiman models I've heard (note, I haven't heard the Edition XV). But it's still not as natural-sounding as the HD6XX. On the 6XX, I can really distinguish the timbral differences between instruments, their unique tone and "textures" are easy to pick out. But it gets hard to tell on the Cosmo sometimes. Some of the instruments sound too similar in tone and the timbral texture is smoothed over, almost like you have a photo filter over everything. (Now to be fair, I've only heard one planar that did this well and it's the Avantone Planar) That said, that "smooth" characteristic does help the Cosmo play better with compressed or poorly mixed music. It doesn't make *everything* sound good like the HD6XX because there's still a bit of that upper treble "sheen" that the Para 2 has and there's no bass bump to liven things up. But in general, you can throw whatever at the Cosmo and it'll come out sounding pretty good. Now in terms of perceived resolution, I think this could've been the Cosmo's "wow" factor. Whereas I found the Para 2's resolution to be more like the Hifiman Edition XS or the Ananda, the Cosmo's is a noticeable step up. It's actually more resolving than the Hifiman HE6se V2 to my ears and even comparable to the Audeze LCD-XC 2021 (which I still find more detailed, but also sounds more unnatural because of the larger amount of upper treble). But for me, the Cosmo suffers the same issue as the HE6se V2, which is that when things get busy, all those subtle details kind of get lost. Which is a shame because there are songs where bass instruments are really well-textured, the change in dynamics with vocals is rendered immaculately, the amount of detail it pulls out is almost like a STAX electrostatic. But then other songs, all those things just get blended together into one big wall of sound and it's hard to tell much difference from the Para 2's resolution.   **Pad-swapping** One thing I have to mention is pad-swapping. Because the Cosmo has a better tonal balance from the start, I find it works better with more pads than the Para 2 does. In fact, it's shocking how well the Cosmo seems to work with different pads. For some reason, the midrange tonality stays a lot more stable than with other headphones. I know people like the Yaxi Fostex TH900 Comfort pads, but I don't really like the fit on those (the angle being top-to-bottom instead of front-to-back just feels weird). I prefer the Moondrop EP-100A pads, which give a more "neutral" sound with more clarity and forward presentation. That said, I do still prefer the stock over either of these as I find their sound profile to be a little bit boring. Other pads that I tried were ZMF pads, Aune AR5000 pads, HarmonicDyne Zeus pads, and even various Aliexpress pads. They all have their own pros and cons, but the takeaway was that everything at least sounded decent. The ZMF Auteur perforated lambskin (current favorite) improved the clarity while adding some sweetness to the Cosmo's vocals. The HarmonicDyne Zeus pads and ZMF solid lambskin pads made for a nicely balanced V-shaped sound. Alpha Dog pads and Aune AR5000 pads improved the sense of resolution, but traded off in other areas like bass impact. **Conclusion** So to summarize this comparison: *Moondrop Para 2* * More comfortable and lighter build, better accessories. * Needs power similar to Sennheiser HD6XX. * More spacious and incisive soundstage. * Leaner tonality, but exceptional with female vocals and extends a little more into the subbass. * Competitive resolution to the egg-shaped Hifimans. *Moondrop Cosmo* * Heavier and less comfortable build, has a matte paint finish. * Needs power similar to Beyerdynamic DT series like 990. * Stock tonality is more full-bodied than the Para 2 and has a "smooth" character that works well for various types of music, but doesn't really have a "wow" factor. * Above average soundstage that's not quite as good with layering and depth. * Outstanding resolution that's quite competitive in its price bracket. * But will probably require pad-swapping or EQ to unleash its full potential, responds very well to both.   So do I recommend the Moondrop Cosmo? (assuming you're okay with the abysmal comfort) I think if you wanted the "Moondrop" sound, the Para 2 is still the better choice. And if you wanted a good all-rounder, I feel that something like a Sennheiser or Focal would be more engaging out-of-the-box. But I think there is a niche for the Cosmo. If you want something resolving and relaxed, but not necessarily treading into dark or warm territory, then this is the headphone for you. It feels like a good middle ground between an Audeze and a Hifiman. I would also recommend this headphone if you like tinkering with the sound, especially through pad swaps.

Cosmo is very good with pad change. I use Yaxi pads or EP100A. I rate them similar level to HE1000SE or Final D8000 pro le.

I was thinking similar to you I just got Moondrop Cosmo and all I can think was my I enjoy my 10 year old bose speaker more,It definitely sounds amazing and not comparable in quailty ,I think its the open air for me ,headphones makes me feel like im locked in a small room. Im looking for vintage speakers now,they are more natural,I dont like artifical sounds and headphones makes you hear that inside your brain

They are good, but those are good for the budget type headphones. HD6xx, Sundara, Edition XS/XV, Focal clear, Focal Elex, HD800S, Moondrop Cosmo/Para, DCA, and than there are e-stats Edit: than there’s a bunch of Peerless 50mm driver based headphone, and more luxury headphones like Meze and ZMF