[eric65]

Hello everyone.

If, in the opinion of the majority (?) (*), the Sennheiser HD-600 (2021) is a headphone that, tonally speaking, borders on perfection (note: technically speaking, there are even better than this electrodynamic headphone, especially with the very good planar and e-stat headphones), well, I find that the COSMO equipped with the PARA's hybrid pads defends itself quite well for tonality, at least on this FR curve.

(*) At least by the famous headphone critic Crinacle, who said of the HD-600: "Neutral - The legendary neutral reference. Slightly better clarity and imaging than the HD650."

For perfectionists: equalize the small level bump at 3 KHz with an EQ, and you'll have a near-perfect headphone.

That said, as expressed in the French forum here: https://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post181376108.html#p181376108 or on head-fi (at the end of the post), here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/moo...nar-new-flagship.970569/page-24#post-18082352

To the question posed by a compatriot about COSMO : " It's still stupid that they didn't just use the original Para's pads... What were the designers thinking? Didn't they even have the idea of doing the same test as eric65? "

I replied: "That's a very good question; I'm asking it myself".

The only way for Moondrop to make up for lost time would be to deliver a second pair of pads with the COSMO, the PARA's hybrid pads (which don't cost much); they've already done this with the PARA (which costs only 300 Euros) and which has two pairs of pads: the excellent hybrid stock pads and a second pair of leather (or imitation leather) pads (not very convincing for the latter). https://boizoff.com/language/en/moondrop-para-headphones-review/

 

[eric65]

Hello everyone.

Concerning the technicality of the COSMO versus other planar headphones, such as the VENUS and the Susvara, if we consider that the mass of the moving equipment (which is the sum of the mass of the plastic film of the diaphragm + the mass of the metal's traces covering the diaphragm) is a major element for the resolution of the headphone; and if we weight this moving-crew mass against the same (equivalent) surface area of the diaphragm of the drivers under consideration, we can assume that the moving mass of the COSMO diaphragm (plastic film + pure silver metal traces), for the same surface area of the diaphragm, is 7.8 times less than that of the VENUS.

And the Susvara?

Assuming further sarting assumptions, the Susvara's movable diaphragm mass (plastic film + gold metal traces), for the same surface area of the diaphragm, is only 1.2 times less than that of the COSMO (and 9.4 times less than that of the VENUS).

If the initial hypotheses are correct, for an equal planar diaphragm surface (if we weigh the same diaphragm surface for both drivers), the COSMO is almost equal to the Susvara in terms of moving mass (moving mass ratio of only 1.2 in favor of Susvara) and much better than the VENUS (moving mass ratio of 7.8 in favor of COSMO).

Note: The details of the starting hypotheses and the calculations (and parameters used) can be consulted on the French forum, here: https://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post181376395.html#p181376395 ; take your best calculator to check the calculations.