Review of Moondrop Para: dazzling

The new budget-fi planar?

Intro

In late 2022, Moondrop released their first over-ear planar headphone, the Venus, after a prolonged wait since their debute on a launch event. While I appreciated the Venus, its hefty weight and modest performance for its price left me somewhat wanting. It didn’t take too long before they introduced a more affordable model, the Para.

The Para, adopting a similar design language, is priced at $299. This is quite aggressive, considering the typically higher cost of planar technology compared to conventional dynamic driver headphones. The materials and build quality appear quite decent. But what do they sound?

Specs & Comfort

Price: US$ 299
Driver size: 100mm (advertised)
Earpad size: 105mm
Sensitivity: 108 dB/Vrms @1kHz
Impedance: flat, 8Ω @1kHz (measured)
Connector: dual 3.5mm
Weight: 526 grams
Clamping force: medium
Headband swivel: YES
Comfort: 4/10 (weighty)

---

Mesurement & Sound

link to the frequency response measurement & more comparisons

Tonal balance:

My first impression was – wow, this is a very capable headphone! Immediately the technical performance comes off clearly ahead of those in the price range, like the HD600, the DT900 ProX, or Hifiman’s entry level planars. I wouldn’t describe its timbre as the most natural though. While it may sound ‘neutral’ at first, the tuning feels somewhat bright and intense.

This review primarily focuses on the hybrid pads, as the perforated pleather pads are excessively bright, to the extent that I find them unlistenable without EQ. I will discuss those pads in the final section on EQing the Para.


The bass is relatively lackluster. As a planar, the Para’s bass extension and the sense of punch are passable. It doesn’t sound limp, but neither the bass quality nor the scale of impact is particularly impressive. There’s not m uch grunt or rumble, and the bass quantity is somewhat unsatisfying. The measured response confirms a noticeable roll-off in the sub-bass area, which aligns with my listening experience.

Planar headphones typically offer a linear bass response, but that’s not the case here. This is likely due to higher tension applied to the Para’s diaphragm plus certain degrees of front volume leakage. The trade-off is a tight, fast, and well-controlled bass response, free from muddiness or bloat. Overall, the bass performance is clearly behind the likes of the Hifiman HE6se, slightly behind the Edition XS, and about on par with the Sundara.


The mids when considered in isolation, are quite pleasing, clean and transparent. The upper-mids are less recessed than typical Hifiman planars like the Sundara, HE6se, or Edition XS. Compared to the Moondrop Venus, the Para’s mids are a bit less full-bodied, yet actually a bit more articulate. It’s not the lush and warm kind, rather just the neutral and uncoloured kind.

It’s important to note that the mids are influenced by other frequency ranges, particularly the treble in this case. Male vocals are mostly fine, unless we are talking about some sort of thrash or hiphop. Some female vocal tracks can sound quite sibilant or sharp, depending on the register and the mastering. For well-recorded tracks, like ‘Bird on a Wire’ by Jennifer Warnes, the Para does a decent job of faithfully reproducing the vocal timbre, though the sibilance in Ss and Ts is borderline uncomfortable. More on this below.


The treble, as expected, is somewhat bright and splashy. The Para generally maintains a neutral midrange and lower treble tonality, but there’s a distinctive sheen to vocals and instruments from 5kHz upwards, somewhat reminiscent of the Venus. It’s mostly in the upper treble ‘air’ and ‘zing’ frequencies, which can make violins, piccolos, and cymbals sound overly energetic, to the point of being intense and fatiguing for many. Hifiman planars are known for boosts in this area, and the Moondrop Para takes it a step further. If you find the Sundara or the Ananda already a bit bright for your taste, the Para is likely going to give you a hard time.

The upside is that instruments sound exceptionally crisp, sharp, and clear. The level of detail the Para reveals is remarkable. However, for many listeners, this level of brightness might be overwhelming. I find about 50% of my library challenging to listen to without EQ. Songs with significant content above 8kHz immediately highlight this brightness. However, tracks with fewer high frequencies, such as those featuring male vocals, are generally more manageable.


Overall, aside from the treble, the Para is quite well-balanced. It leans towards brightness, but fortunately, the mids and bass don’t feel lean, which would have been a very problematic combination.

Other qualities:

• Soundstage and Imaging:
  The soundstage of the Para is quite impressive. It’s not as expansive as the Venus but slightly surpasses the Sundara 2021. Imaging is also commendable, with vocals sounding clear and distinct – a clear step up from the HE400se and slightly better than the Sundara 2021. This may be due to strong energy in the ear-gain region between 3-5kHz. However, stage depth is somewhat flat, more noticeable in orchestral music, such as when locating the timpani.

• Clarity:
  The clarity and resolution are impressive. The Para’s detail-oriented tuning reveals many subtle details, particularly in percussion instruments like hi-hats or cymbals. Some might attribute this to the elevated treble, suggesting a ‘false’ sense of detail. My view is mixed: while the treble boost does enhance perceived detail, the Para’s driver is genuinely capable of reproducing high-frequency sounds with good fidelity. It is excellent not only for the price, but can compete even with some much more expensive headphones, like the Focal Clear, the Audeze LCD-2 Fazor or the Stax L500.
  
  However, there seems to be a potential resonance issue between 12-14kHz. The unsmoothed frequency response shows some messiness or what might be called a ‘sawtooth’ pattern in this region, indicating some form of non-linearity. In my listening tests, the 11-13kHz range indeed stands out noticeably, translating into audible peaks, which affects the treble timbre. Smoothing this region could significantly refine the overall treble quality.

• Dynamics and Impact:
  The dynamic qualities of the Para are good for the price, comparable to the Sundara 2021. It offers slightly better control and contrast between loud and soft elements, with even the decay of quieter sounds being clear and distinct. However, its slam and impact are somewhat lacking, surprising given its double-sided magnet structure compared to the single-sided Sundara. The Venus excelled more in these aspects.

---

Conclusion and value:

Without EQ, the Para might feel a little too clinical and bright for many genres, except perhaps acoustic or classical recordings. Nonetheless, its exceptional technical capabilities, decent build quality, and materials make it a strong contender. However, it may not distinctly stand out from other similarly priced offerings, such as the HD6 series, Sundara, or Verum One. While the Para is unquestionably the most technically capable in this group, its un-EQed performance doesn’t quite elevate it to a higher tier, due to the somewhat fatiguing treble.

However, for those less sensitive to treble above 8kHz, the Para is undoubtedly an excellent headphone. Most of my concerns stem from the treble region above that.

At $299, the Moondrop Para still offers great value, particularly for those open to EQ. While its stock tuning might not suit everyone due to its overly zealous treble, it’s easily adjustable. A simple reduction in the upper treble significantly improves tonality, as the mids are already quite linear up to 8kHz.

It’s encouraging to see budget planars getting more competitive. With what Moondrop has achieved with the Para, I am optimistic about their future releases.

Pros: Exceptional clarity; bright tuning but with a natural midrange; clean and tight bass; outstanding technical performance for the price; solid build and materials.

Cons: Vocal sibilance; peaky upper treble; potentially intense for modern genres; bass extension and quantity could be better.

Value Grade (subjective assessment on value, NOT sound quality):

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Rating: 9 out of 10.

---

Notes on EQ

The Para doesn’t require much EQ aside from the treble and pure bass quantity. A high-shelf filter above 8kHz would perhaps be the easiest way to go, but you could potentially do better by trying to locate the rough positions of the peaks and pull them down with peak filters.

My personal EQ profile for this headphone (with the perforated pleather pads, as it has better spatial representation than the hybrid pads):

Preamp: -7.0 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20 Hz Gain 7.0 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 420 Hz Gain 1.5 dB Q 1.200
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 530 Hz Gain 1.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1100 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 1.600
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2000 Hz Gain 4.5 dB Q 3.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 5400 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8600 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 12000 Hz Gain -6.0 dB Q 2.200
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 12500 Hz Gain -2.0 dB Q 3.000

If you want to stick with the default hybrid pads:

Preamp: -6.0 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 22 Hz Gain 6.0 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 450 Hz Gain 0.5 dB Q 1.500
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 540 Hz Gain 0.5 dB Q 3.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1900 Hz Gain 3.0 dB Q 2.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3200 Hz Gain -2.5 dB Q 2.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 8500 Hz Gain -1.5 dB Q 3.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 11000 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14000 Hz Gain -4.0 dB Q 3.000

If you would like to EQ to the Harman Target, there’s an handy AutoEQ function built in Squiglink that you could use as a starting point (I personally do not recommend doing so – ideally you should adjust the filters to suit your own hearing especially in the treble).

---

MEASUREMENTS

Frequency Response Average (unsmoothed):

Bass extension cutoff is 10hz instead of 20hz on the extende frequency response measurement, so as to fully capture frequencies which though may not outside of the ‘audible range’, may be felt by our ears, bones and muscles and enhance the sense of ‘impact’. The response is obtained by an average of positional variations. The graph is unsmoothed to better show the peaks and dips that might be audible.

Positional Variation:

This graph shows how the tonality might be affected when you wear the headphones differently on the head.

Leakage Test:

This graph demonstrates how a small leakage (simulated using thin-armed glasses) can result in FR change.

Impulse Response:

Impulse response contains information about transducer movement when a test tone is played.

Channel Matching:

Channel matching graphs DOES NOT RELATE TO SOUND PROFILE.
a specialised configuration is used to capture channel differences to mitigate the interference from positioning on rig and the asymmetricity in GRAS pinnae design (legacy of KEMAR).
the Left (blue) and Right (red) channels are measured on a flat plate coupler with an IEC60318-4 ear simulator.

Total Harmonic Distortion under 94dB SPL (supplied per request):

Measured under normal room condition. THD (black), 2nd harmonic (red), 3rd harmonic (yellow).

Electric Phase & Impedance:

The above graph shows the measured impedance (green) and electric phase (grey).

END OF THE ARTICLE

Disclaimer: all the headphones tested here are my personal units unless otherwise stated. All the links and recommendations provided are not associated with me in any financial manner.

EDIT 27/01: corrected several typos and expressions for clarity
EDIT 07/02: added comparison for clarity with other headphones