Moondrop - Para 2

https://preview.redd.it/6s7euij4cz4g1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a833ceb2c7f576aaeb0d1e7888823a9eb54d7eb2 I recently auditioned these 2 headphones during my trip to China last week, I was using the fiio k17 to drive them. Tbh, the only major difference I can tell right away was the sound stage. One of the song i was listening to where there was 2 singer, one on the left and one on the right. When one start singing, you can hear it on the left side with moondrop Laputa and pretty much nothing on the right until the second singer start singing. But on the Para 2/Fiio ft7/Hifiman He600 you can hear it on both sides, ofc the right side being more subtle. The rest of the difference in sound quality was so minute that it didn’t feel like spending 2 times the price of Para 2 was worth it. Plus the comfort of the para 2 is much better than the Laputa😓. Also, you could argue that k17 was not good enough to drive the Laputa since the sensitivity is on par with the susvara, so I wouldn’t recommend anyone without a powerful amp enough to drive the susvara to blindly buy the Laputa.

Not sure what the budget range would be, but I think the Moondrop Para 2 sounds pretty exceptional for its price point; punches way above its class. Not a headphone, but I think the Topping DX5 II is actually insane. Clean power, great features, parametric EQ, bluetooth and an INSANE amount of power for its price. Seems like a price bracket destroyer.

**Introduction** Moondrop is well-established in the IEM space, having had various benchmark releases over the years that shook up the market. The Moondrop Para 2 is one of their more recent attempts to branch out into the over-ears headphone space. It came along the heels of the Moondrop Para and Moondrop Cosmo, both of which seemed to be fairly well-received, but didn't get much traction with the general community. I feel that the Moondrop Para 2 has fallen even more under the radar, likely because of its more polarizing price point at 499.99 USD. Now that I've had a good chunk of time with these headphones, I'd like to share my thoughts on this iteration of Moondrop's over-ears and how it seems to fare against the competition. For full disclosure, these are my own personal pair that I purchased secondhand and not a review unit. (though I would love to review a loaner, Moondrop *wink wink*) For reference, I ran the headphones in this review through the Schiit Audio Bifrost (OG) DAC and the Drop + THX AAA ONE amp. Now onto the review!   **Build and Accessories** The packaging for the Moondrop Para 2 is very barebones, basically just a flimsy-feeling cardboard box. I would say it's even worse than the packaging from Massdrop as their box at least feels thick and sturdy. I do like the cover art though, it's rendered with a more painterly style than the usual modern anime aesthetic. Inside the packaging, the Para 2 comes with a nice nylon case that has a foam insert for the headphones and a mesh pouch for cables. It's not as compact as a wireless headphone case (such as the Sony WH-1000XM4), but it's smaller than expected considering the size of the Para 2. It's actually smaller than a Beyerdynamic headphone case (despite those being a smaller headphone) while being pretty similar in quality. So kudos to Moondrop for that. As for accessories, you get one flat ribbon-style cable with dual 3.5mm connectors that terminate in a 4.4mm balanced connection. It also comes with a short cable adapter that converts to a 3.5mm connection. I don't really have any complaints about the cable or the adapter, it's kind of like the adapter you get with a Hart Audio cable. But the cable itself feels pretty cheap and is prone to tangling. Still, it's light and decently flexible so at least it gets the job done. I vastly prefer it to something like the "medical tubing" Hifiman cables. Now for the actual headphones, I was surprised by the feeling and quality of the build. Other headphones I've tried with more metal often have trade-offs like sharp edges and janky headbands until you get to higher price brackets. But while the Para 2's industrial design uses a lot of stainless steel, it's decently refined. The edges are polished off and there aren't any rattling bits, everything feels pretty solid and tight. I particularly like the feeling of the yoke adjustment, which has a nice tactile click to it. The quality of the earpads are also pretty nice. They're perforated sheepskin pads that feel supple, but not overly smooth and plasticky. Not quite as nice-feeling as a ZMF pad, but better than something like the Brainwavz sheepskins. They attach to the headphones using a removable metal plate that sticks through the magnetic force from the drivers. It's a clever solution, although it can take a bit of coaxing to position the pads so that they're fully seated. I do also wish they had rounded off the sharp edges of the plate as I feel they will wear things out if you swap pads often. Comfort is where I have a mixed bag. On one hand, despite the headphones weighing 516g on my scale, I don't really feel it because of how well-distributed the weight is. The weight is less noticeable to me than stuff like the Hifiman HE6se V2 and the Avantone Planar. In addition, you have both horizontal and vertical swivel, so it's easy to conform the fit to your head shape. But the headband is where the problem lies. As others have stated before, this is definitely not for smaller heads. My head is on the larger side and I still use these on the lowest notch. In addition, the clamp force is quite weak so the thinner earpads don't stay firmly on the side of my head. Now the headband is spring steel, so you can bend it to give it a bit more clamp force, but it needs way more of an adjustment than bending can do imo. On the bright side, at least the headband strap is nice and pliable, much better than the stiff ones you get with Hifiman headphones. Power-wise, these aren't super easy to drive and it's tough to run them directly on a smartphone. But they don't need a massive amount of power either. If you can drive something like the HD600 series with your setup, then you can drive these headphones. Overall, I'm pretty impressed by the Para 2's build. For me, if the clamp force on the headband was moderately increased, I'd be pretty happy with the rest. Assuming the build holds up over time, I think it's appropriate for the price, but it does have stiff competition from stuff like the Focal Elex, DCA Aeon series, and the Meze 105 Silva.   **Sound Impressions** For a long time, I've been searching for a headphone with the style of tuning that Moondrop uses for their IEMs. For the music I listen to, which features a lot of Asian female vocals and orchestral soundtracks, their balance in the treble and upper mids is exceptional. I haven't heard their other headphones, but I'm glad to say that the Moondrop Para 2 pretty much nails that Moondrop house sound (minus the bass shelf). I would describe the general sound signature of the Para 2 as neutral-bright. It's pretty flat in the bass, has some forwardness in the mids, and pulls off a refined balance in the treble area with strategic dips and peaks. Similar to Hifiman, Moondrop pulls off treble emphasis in a tasteful manner. Things that token the upper mids like female vocals and strings sound light and delicate without feeling like you have glass in your ears. Small details like breaths and trailing tones are pushed forward and rendered clearly, but not in a way that makes things sound artificial or etched. What you get is a very clean and detailed sound, but with some smoothness that makes it more pleasant to listen to. The trade-off is that the overall sound is a bit on the lean side. Some vocals and instruments don't sound quite as "full" as they should be and could benefit from having more weight and body behind them. Despite the smooth quality that the treble has, this definitely leans more to an analytical sound. The bass is pretty linear, though I feel it rolls off in the subbass a little sooner than other planars. I'd say the sense of impact is better than a Sennheiser headphone and around the same level as an egg-shaped Hifiman. But because the bass is quite clean and well-textured, it really does benefit from adding a couple dB in the low end through EQ. For soundstage and imaging, the Para 2 does a great job. It sounds spacious and gives instruments plenty of room to breathe while still maintaining good vocal presence. It's not unnaturally distant-sounding like the Sennheiser HD800S or AKG K702. And it doesn't feel like there's a lot of empty space in-between like the Sennheiser HD560S. For my ears, the stage feels more elliptical (wider than it is deep) and it's not quite as immersive as the egg-shaped Hifimans. But it gets pretty close. In terms of perceived resolution, again the tonality pushes a lot of subtle detail forward so it seems more detailed than what I'd say is natural. It's definitely not forgiving of bad mixes and older music, the artifacts and small issues come through very clearly. And there can be a little sibilance for music that's mixed particularly bright. But I don't mind this presentation since it still manages to sound balanced. The Beyerdynamic house sound is also one that pushes small details forward, but I feel that their treble is a lot more aggressive and feels like it's straining to be hyper-detailed. In comparison, the extra detail in the Para 2 comes through more effortlessly and doesn't overwhelm other parts of the music. As for gaming, the positional cues are fairly precise. I'd say better than the HD560S, but not quite as good as a Beyerdynamic. But the treble emphasis might make things like gunshots sound a little too sharp. And for cinematic gaming or movies, I think you'd want to EQ in some bass to really get that immersive experience.   **Comparisons** *Hifiman Ananda (OG) (Edition XS at 209 USD) and HE6se V2 (399 USD)* If you look at the sound in broad strokes, the Para 2 seems very "Hifiman-y". It's a neutral-bright tonality with a detailed, but lean sound and a spacious soundstage. And in some ways, the Para 2 does feel like a mixture of the egg-shaped and round Hifiman headphones. The place where this feels most obvious to me is in the soundstage presentation. To my ears, it has most of the spaciousness of the Ananda while having a forward vocal presentation that’s more like the HE6se V2. I would say the Para 2's soundstage is even wider than the Ananda, but not as deep. It has great positional cues left-to-right, but sometimes it's a little like the HE6se V2, which struggles at separating the layers in the music and can blend into a wall of sound. But Para 2’s vocal presentation is better than both Hifimans. It highlights the vocals more than the Ananda, which can sound a bit distant. But also doesn't shove them into your face as much as the HE6se V2, which I find a little shouty. Compared to the Para 2, both Hifimans have a bit more body and note weight to them. I think part of this is because the Hifimans seem to extend a little more into the subbass. The general timbre of instruments and vocals seem more natural on the Hifimans, but there are cases where the light delicateness of the Para 2 works better, such as with female vocals. The bass is clean and well-textured on all three headphones. But the HE6se V2 definitely has a better sense of impact. The Para 2's slam is more similar to the Ananda, but the impact feels a bit more diffused whereas the Ananda's is more narrow and focused. I think part of the reason is because the treble on the Para 2 feels a bit more on the "mushy" side. I wouldn't say any of these headphones are sibilant or piercing, but the Hifimans seem to have a bit more snap and defined edge to sounds while the Para 2 is more rounded out. As a result, the transient attack sticks out more on the Hifimans. In terms of perceived detail and resolution, I think the HE6se V2 has a small edge over the other two headphones. However, it's harder to make out those details because its layering isn't as good. I would say that the Para 2 and Ananda are about on-par in terms of detail, but approach it differently. The Para 2 pushes details in the background forward so that they're easier to hear. The Ananda takes advantage of its layering ability so that you can peer "deeper" into the music. Now when it comes to build and comfort, the Para 2 would have won hands-down if it wasn't for the loose clamp force. Both of the Hifimans have awful headbands that have hot spots and yokes that scratch their own paint off. The pad swapping system is a massive pain because of the flimsy plastic tabs they use that are difficult to reattach. The infamous "medical tubing" Hifiman cable is not very pliable and just flops around everywhere. And even though the Para 2 should be heavier than either Hifiman, it doesn't feel like it because of how well the weight is distributed.   *Sennheiser HD6XX (179 USD)* The Sennheiser HD6XX adds even more body and note weight to the sound than the Hifimans. While I consider the HD6XX to have a neutral-warm tonality, I don't think it strays into dark and muffled territory. However, that's how it can come across if you listen to it back-to-back with the clearer and more treble-tilted sound of the Para 2. The timbre of instruments and vocals sound much more natural on the HD6XX. It's very easy to distinguish the different sounds and their unique "character". The Para 2 and the Hifimans don't sound unnatural, but they give a kind of "sheen" to instruments and vocals. I think of it like having night mode on your phone. You can still distinguish the different colors, but it's obviously washed over with a different tint. With the Para 2, the place where it's most obvious for me is brass instruments, which end up sounding somewhat harsh and tinny. That said, that "sheen" does help certain things sound better on the Para 2. I've already said this multiple times, but female vocals (especially light and airy ones) are just such a treat on this headphone. While the HD6XX captures the nuances of the vocals better, the Para 2 pushes the highs just enough to give them a very delicate, almost angelic tone. In terms of soundstage, there really is no contest here, the Para 2 just sounds much more spacious and open than the HD6XX. But I do find the layering on the HD6XX to be a bit better than the Para 2. And I think part of the reason is because of its ability to present timbre so well. This makes it very easy to pick out every instrument that's playing in the mix. But where the Para 2 comes back is in the imaging. Because of the HD6XX's smaller soundstage, even if you can pick out all the instruments, their positioning is pretty hazy because everything's more closed-in. For detail and resolution, I personally feel that the HD6XX is quite resolving. It catches all those subtle nuances that make the timbre of vocals and instruments seem so "lifelike". However, it's not across the board. The roll-off in the treble and bass means there are some details that are hard to make out on the HD6XX. These details are pushed forward by the Para 2 and the more spacious soundstage makes it even easier to hear them. So while I think the HD6XX still wins out for midrange resolution, the Para 2 sounds noticeably more detailed overall. For comfort, the HD6XX is better than the Para 2 (even if we ignore the loose clamp force) due to how light it is. But for my ears specifically, I find the pads to be a bit too small now that I've gotten used to larger pad diameters. And of course, the HD6XX's clamp force is like a vice grip. But otherwise, there aren't many hotspots and it's a pair of headphones I can easily wear throughout the day whereas with the Para 2, I would still need breaks even if it fit well.   *Focal Clear Mg (1,599 USD)* The Clear Mg's tonality is pretty balanced to my ears, but definitely tilted more to neutral-warm. The bass extends just as low as the Para 2, but seems to be more elevated so the subbass rumble comes through more prominently. The bass impact also hits much harder on the Clear Mg. The Para 2 feels like a wet noodle in comparison unless you add in some bass via EQ. The overall treble is definitely more pulled back on the Clear Mg, but I would call it "relaxed" rather than dark or muffled. There is more air here than the HD6XX, but the Para 2 still has more clarity in the treble. This combined with the bass elevation does mean the Clear Mg feels "heavier" and more closed-in than the Para 2. But you do get some extra body and warmth in exchange. Because of that extra body, the general timbre of vocals and instruments actually comes across better on the Clear Mg. However, in the same way that the Para 2 has a "sheen", the Clear Mg has a "nasal" quality that colors certain sounds, like when you’re plugging up your nose. There's not so much that it ruins the tonality, but it makes sounds in the higher registers like female vocals, brass and string instruments, etc sound a bit grating. I find it more unpleasant than the “sheen” from the Para 2 (which makes the treble a bit peaky-sounding at times). For soundstage, the Para 2 easily wins in terms of size and spaciousness. The Clear Mg has a more average soundstage which is a bit bigger than the HD6XX. But the presentation for both is kind of similar. Like the Para 2, the Clear Mg's imaging also has good precision going left-to-right and vocals land in that sweet spot where it's emphasized a bit, but not full-on in your face. Similar to the HD6XX, I also find the Clear Mg to be a bit better at separating the layers than the Para 2, despite the soundstage being more closed-in. Detail and resolution-wise, it's a bit of a toss-up depending on what you're listening for. The Clear Mg captures more of the trailing tones and nuances in the sound and it also has a lot of the low bass texture that the Para 2 lacks without EQ. But like with the HD6XX, the more spacious soundstage of the Para 2 makes it easier to make out details in the background. For me, while I think the Para 2 gets pretty close, the Clear Mg is still the more resolving headphone. For comfort, the Clear Mg kind of wins by default because it has just the right clamp force to stay firmly on my head. The build also feels a lot more luxurious and has a satisfying tactility and smoothness to all the attachment and adjustment mechanisms. However, if the Para 2 didn't have that fit issue, it'd be a little harder to say. Though the Clear Mg is lighter than the Para 2, more of the weight seems to be in the cups and I can feel it noticeably on my ears. There is also a little bit of a hotspot on the Clear Mg's headband for me. While I think I would still be able to wear the Clear Mg for longer periods, the Para 2's more even weight distribution makes it feel less noticeable while wearing it.   **Conclusion** The Moondrop Para 2 translates over a lot of the elements that make Moondrop's IEMs so appealing to me. A clean and transparent sound that's spacious and detailed without feeling too sharp or unnatural. While there are a lot of similarities with Hifiman in that regard, Moondrop's interpretation still manages to carve out its own niche. But its stock tonality is not something I would say is for everyone. I'm not even sure if I would call this a "weeb-centric" headphone because music in the ACG world (anime, comics, and games) has gotten pretty varied and spans a lot of genres. But it plays well with modern pop instrumentation and things like light female vocals and piano, where the lack of body is not as noticeable. However, this headphone is quite easy to EQ and/or do pad-rolling for. So if you're someone who likes to tinker with their sound, the Para 2 sets up a really good starting point. For me, just adding a bass shelf and dropping the overall treble a few dB is enough to make this sound better for a wider variety of music. Now despite the Para 2's strengths, it *was* going to be hard for me to recommend this headphone to the average listener. And the main reason (besides the fit issue) is the value proposition. The performance of this headphone definitely punches above its price bracket. But there are headphones that are just as good or not that far off at a lower price like the Hifiman Edition XS or the Sennheiser HD6XX. So while I think the build quality and tonal strengths of the Para 2 could definitely appeal to some, the 499 USD price tag made it a lot harder to swallow. However, it seems like the price for the Para 2 has now dropped down to 399 USD. Since that's just a little bit more than the original Para was (at 349 USD), I think that's quite fair for a refinement over the OG Para. It's still not quite as "bang-for-your-buck" as some of the cheaper competitors and there is still the fit issue (which could potentially be mitigated using the headband mod). But I think if you are looking for an analytical and detailed sound signature with a spacious soundstage, this is now a more viable alternative to Hifiman. And if you like the Moondrop house sound, I don't think you'll find anything that does it better for an over-ear (unless the other Moondrop headphones somehow kick this thing's ass).

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.

I tried the FIIO FT7 and Dan Clark Noire XO in the store. Then I got my Para 2. With PEQ, it beats the more expensive cans and it is not even close.

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