Moondrop Para II review: where’s the upgrade?

Intro:

Despite feeling a bit too bright for my taste, I still enjoyed the original Moondrop Para when I reviewed it. It offered excellent value for money with its technical performance and flexibility with EQ and pad rolling. Moondrop’s current flagship, the Cosmo, also won me over with its overall sound quality. So, I had fairly high hopes going into the Para 2.

At first glance, the Moondrop Para 2 looks nearly identical to the OG: same chassis design, just a new finish. That raises the question: with the price jumping from $349 to $499, are there actually substantial upgrades under the hood?

Moondrop’s marketing doesn’t seem to suggest much has changed. The driver material is still the same silver-trace diaphragm, and no major technical updates are called out (thickness is said to be 1.2μm, but not disclosed for the OG). Visually, I do like the new look. The brushed stainless steel finish feels more premium and does a better job resisting scratches and daily wear. But let’s be honest — that alone isn’t enough. What matters is the sound.

The only obvious change out of the box is the pads. From what I can tell, the Para 2 now ships with the Cosmo pads, a switch that definitely affects the tuning. But is that all? Let’s take a closer look.

For those who want to jump right into detailed measurements, check out the final section of this article.

Disclaimer: This unit was purchased for review.

Specs & Comfort

Price: $499 USD / $799 AUD
Driver size: 100 mm (frame); 80 mm (effective)
Driver type: Planar Magnetic
Sensitivity: 110 dB/Vrms @1kHz
Impedance: flat, 9 Ω at 1kHz (measured)
Connector: dual 3.5 mm TRS
Weight: 513 grams (excl. cable)
Clamping force: light
Comfort: 6/10 (weighty; clamping force a bit loose)

---

Measurement & Sound

For more comparisons, visit my squiglink database.

Tonal balance:

Overall, the Para 2 is an enjoyable listen. It offers some thoughtful refinements over the OG: smoother mids, more controlled treble, and slightly fuller bass. None of these changes are dramatic, but they do shift the presentation in a more polished direction. But there’s a catch. More on that in the sections below.

Bass
The bass here is tight, responsive, and digs deep, reaching all the way down to 20Hz. But it leans more toward the light, snappy, and agile side of planar bass, rather than the dense, weighty slam you’d expect from something like the Focal Clear or Audeze LCD-2.

For bass performance, the Para 2 is basically on par with the original Para. I own two OG units, and there’s noticeable variation even between them. My first unit, bought at launch, had a slightly brighter and tighter character with less low-end presence. The second had a fuller bass response and a more relaxed tone. The Para 2 sounds closer to that second pair: its low end feels a bit deeper and more atmospheric, while the OG leans slightly tighter and more focused. Still, the differences are subtle rather than dramatic. All in all, it feels more like a minor shift in diaphragm tensioning than a design overhaul.


Midrange
The mids on the Para 2 are clean and articulate — more like studio monitors than lounge speakers. They’re not the lush or rich kind, but they’re present, well-balanced, and avoid shoutiness. With the stock pads, there’s a subtle bump around 1kHz that makes the mids sound fuller than on the OG. Occasionally, this can lend a slightly nasal character, though it’s far from intrusive.

What’s interesting is that the main tonal difference between the OG and Para 2 stems from the pads. When tested with the same EP100A pad, the sound difference between the Para OG and Para 2 gets quite subtle. We’re talking maybe a 10-20% shift mainly in how the upper mids are rendered. The Para 2 presents them in a slightly more filled-in and cohesive way. There’s a stronger sense of texture and grain, especially in the upper mids.

Overall, I’d consider the mids a step forward with the new stock pads. They remain largely what I would call a neutral tuning. That means they won’t necessarily wow you or flatter vocals with extra warmth or sweetness. But in this price range, the clarity and tonal honesty are impressive, even if they don’t steal the spotlight.


Treble
When comparing both models with their stock pads, the Para 2 is noticeably smoother and more forgiving than the OG, though at the cost of some airiness. That said, treble tuning is highly influenced by ear pads, so to better isolate the differences, let’s compare them using the same new Cosmo (Para 2 stock) pads.

The treble tuning on the Para 2 reminds me of the shift from the Hifiman Susvara OG to the Susvara Unveiled. There’s less emphasis in the upper treble, which gives the Para 2 a smoother, less splashy top end, but also a bit less brilliance/air. On the flip side, there’s increased presence in the mid-treble region right where violins, cymbals, and vocal harmonics sit.

This rebalance works well for certain modern pop and rock tracks where energy in the 8-12kHz range is sometimes dialed up for extra billiance in vocals. That bite is still there, but now delivered in a slightly more controlled way. Still, I’d describe the Para 2 as smoother and slightly less edgy up top. Some listeners may even find it more natural or forgiving especially on longer sessions.

Other qualities:

• Soundstage
  The soundstage on the Para 2 is reasonably wide: not overly expansive, but certainly not claustrophobic either. It scales naturally with the music. It won’t fake a grand stage where there isn’t one, but when the mix calls for something spacious and open, the Para 2 delivers.
  
  Imaging is tight and precise, and depth, while not exceptional, is good enough to place instruments cleanly in a mix without feeling congested. Compared to the OG, the Para 2 is more of a sidegrade in spatial qualities. It offers slightly sharper imaging, but trades off a bit of depth.

• Clarity
  Clarity is one of the standout traits here, just like on the OG. This level of resolution punches well above its price bracket. You typically need to move into kilobuck territory in the dynamic driver world for this kind of resolution. Even better, it achieves this without overly skewing the tuning toward brightness. There’s a slight tilt toward the treble, sure, but it doesn’t rely on artificial sparkle or peaky emphasis to fake detail. So, the level of clarity here feels clean and coherent.

• Dynamics
  Dynamics are fast and incisive. Transient attack is crisp, and the overall presentation has good energy and pop. The Para 2 is very good at microdynamics (small-scale shifts and nuances in quieter passages). That linear bass, clean treble extension, and overall tonal balance work together to ensure you don’t miss out on subtle detail.
  
  Macro-dynamics (slam and impact) are decent for the price, but not particularly standout. If you’re after that physical thump or head-rattling punch, you may find it lacking. Still, it handles EQ really well: no excursion limits hit at 100dB in the bass, no obvious compression jumping from 84dB to 100dB. Just keep in mind, its tolerance for leakage isn’t class-leading among planars.

---

Conclusion and value:

So, is the Para 2 worth the extra cost? If you’re judging purely by sound quality, the answer is a cautious maybe. The changes are more of a side-step than a true, all-around upgrade. You get a smoother and slightly more cohesive tuning, with fuller mids, but the overall sonic character and technical performance remain very similar to the original.

The most noticeable improvement comes from the new pads. They do change the tuning in a meaningful way, but since they’re compatible with the original Para, you could achieve a similar result just by buying the Para2/Cosmo pads separately.

That said, the updated brushed stainless steel chassis is a nice touch. It resists scratches better and is about 13 grams lighter, which slightly improves comfort over long listening sessions. If you’re tough on your gear, the Para 2’s more durable build makes sense. But if your focus is purely on sound, the OG still offers excellent value.

Honestly, I had higher expectations. Moondrop built its reputation by shaking up the IEM market with disruptive value and excellent tuning. The original Para largely followed that spirit. The new Para 2, in contrast, feels more like a conservative update. It’s the kind of safe iteration we’ve seen many other brands release.

At $499 USD / $799 AUD, I still recommend the Para 2 as it sounds great out of the box. But it would become a better buy if you can catch it on sale.

If this feels a little inconclusive, here’s the bottom line: go for the Para 2 if you don’t want to mess with pad-rolling, EQ, or if budget isn’t a concern. But if you already own the original Para, there’s no urgent need to upgrade. Just grab the Cosmo pads, you’ll get most of the benefit.

PROS:
+ Balanced tuning with a slightly bright, airy tilt
+ Smoother and more forgiving than the original Para
+ Clarity punches well above its price point
+ Improved build quality and lighter chassis

CONS:
– Not a major upgrade in sound quality compared to the OG
– Most of the improvement comes from the ear pads, which are swappable
– Noticeable price jump from the OG
– No extra set of pads included (an EP100A or hybrid pad would have been appreciated)

Value Grade:

---

Notes on Ear Pads and EQ

As an open-back planar, the Para 2 is quite accommodating for pad-rolling, allowing users to fine-tune the sound or replace the stock pads as they wear out.

The stock pads, though, are where the real tuning shifts happen. Moondrop’s new Cosmo pads, which come stock with the Para 2, change the character noticeably. They smooth out the treble and fill in the mids for a more cohesive and slightly warmer presentation compared to the OG’s stock pads. That said, some might prefer the Para pads or the EP100A pads on the Para 2 for a more traditional/neutral sound.

In terms of EQ, this headphone requires little adjustments to sound well-balanced. That said, there’s still room for fine-tuning.

As with many planars, the Para 2 responds well to EQ especially in the bass. It can handle healthy low-end boosts without distortion or compression, even at higher volumes. That gives you some headroom to dial in slam if you find the stock tuning a bit too polite down low.

My EQ setting for this headphone (with stock pads):

Preamp: -5.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 25 Hz Gain 5.5 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 140 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 0.500
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1100 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 1.500
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2200 Hz Gain 4.0 dB Q 2.500
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10500 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 3.000

If your goal is to EQ the response to match the Harman Target, consider the AutoEQ function provided by Squiglink as a convenient starting point. I personally recommend customising the filters to better suit your own hearing, especially in the treble. While the AutoEQ provides a useful baseline, individual adjustments can often significantly improve your listening experience.

If you’re new to EQ, I’d recommend checking out this video by Resolve from The Headphone Show — it’s a really solid intro and walks through the basics in a clear, no-nonsense way. Great place to start!

---

MEASUREMENTS

Frequency Response Average (unsmoothed):

The response is obtained by an average of 5-6 positional variations. The FR shown on the graph is unsmoothed.

Positional Variation:

This graph illustrates how headphone placement on the head affects perceived tonal balance: with the ear positioned at the front (blue), centre (purple), and back (red) of the headphone. The FRs shown on the graph are unsmoothed.

Leakage Tolerance:

This graph demonstrates how leakages to the front volume can result in FR change: blue (good seal), purple (thin arm glasses), red (thick arm glasses). The FR shown on the graph is 1/12 octave smoothed.

Comment: Like most open-back planars, this headphone shows a slightly bass boost when the seal is compromised. Of note, midrange and treble level also shift with changes in seal, which may cause listeners report noticeable variation in perceived tonal balance.

Linearity and Dynamic Compression:

Linearity and dynamic compression testing plots the headphone’s frequency response at two input levels to show how it reproduces signals as loudness changes. Any divergence between the high-level and low-level curves points to where the transducer’s dynamic range begins to compress or distort. Here, the measurements are superimposed to allow direct comparison.

Comment: This is excellent result. There’re no signs of compression at high SPLs.

Impulse Response:

The impulse response test measures the initial response, overshoot, and decay of a transducer upon receiving a signal. An initial upshoot indicates a normal polarity, vice versa.

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD% 2nd-9th) & Excess Group Delay (94 dB):

These measurements are conducted in quiet, normal room conditions (as opposed to an anechoic chamber), meaning there may be some influence from ambient room and external noise. These results should be considered a preliminary assessment of performance, primarily for identifying major issues, and do not reflect the best-case performance scenario.

Comment: 94dB distortion levels are a bit on the higher side hovering around 0.2-0.5% between 1500-8000Hz, but still within acceptable limits. At typical listening volumes, this should remain inaudible and not impact the overall sound quality.

Update: the rising THD issue appears to be limited to one channel; the other channel measures within expected bounds (very low indeed). That said, both drivers look nearly identical visually, so I can’t definitively say which one represents the “normal” case. I’ll give Moondrop the benefit of the doubt and include both sets of measurements here for transparency.

Channel Matching:

Channel matching graphs are intended for quality control checks and do not relate to the perceived sound profile. A specialised configuration is used in this test to capture differences between channels, mitigating interference from positioning on the rig and the asymmetry in the GRAS pinnae design, a legacy of KEMAR. The left (blue) and right (red) channels are measured using a flat plate coupler with an IEC60318-4 ear simulator.

Comment: Channel matching on this particular unit is very good, which may contribute to imaging precision and the clarity of spatial cues.

Electric Phase & Impedance:

The above graph shows the measured impedance (green) and electric phase (grey), measured under free-air condition (minimal front volume coupling).

Comment: This headphone’s impedance curve is typical of a planar headphone – flat and low.

END OF THE ARTICLE

Disclaimer: This review is not sponsored or endorsed by any business or related entity. The headphones reviewed are my own unless stated otherwise. Any links or recommendations included are purely informational and do not involve any financial affiliation or endorsement on my part.

EDIT 07/08/2025: corrected info on RRP