Isabellaevs.Mk12 Turris

Sound & Specs Comparison

Information

Both IEMs are widely regarded in the audiophile community. See how they differ in terms of sub-bass response, upper mids, clarity, and overall tonality. Spider charts and rating breakdowns included.

Objective Comparison

Facts, details, stuff.

Meta Ratings

Mk12 Turris reveals microdetails and transient responses with readably better articulation, helping listeners uncover nuances often missed with Isabellae. For comfort fit, Isabellae performs softly better (7.8 vs 7.3). While Isabellae is passable in its design, Mk12 Turris stands clearly above, particularly in terms of assembly quality, material choice, and finish. The stock cable of Isabellae is significantly higher in quality (6.3 vs 4.8), offering improvements in flexibility, tactile feedback, and resistance to microphonics. Compared to Mk12 Turris, the overall accessory offering from It is evidently more aligned with the expectations of discerning audiophiles.

Sound Characteristics

Mk12 Turris delivers a deeper and more extended sub-bass, reaching lower frequencies with greater authority than Isabellae (8.5 vs 5.8). It offers d stronger and more impactful bass response, adding weight and presence where Isabellae feels less assertive (8 vs 6.5). It translates bass vibrations into a n more visceral experience, while Isabellae lacks this tactile feedback (8.5 vs 6). Male vocals and lower instruments sound c richer and better defined on It, unlike Isabellae which can seem hollow (9 vs 6.5). Upper mids are c more resolving and expressive on It, revealing emotion and articulation better than Isabellae (8 vs 6.8). It offers s greater shimmer and nuance in the lower treble, revealing micro-details that Isabellae misses (9 vs 6.5). It captures ambient cues and reverbs s more precisely through its upper treble, enhancing spatial perception over Isabellae (9 vs 7). Listeners may notice that It presents sounds with c more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than Isabellae (8 vs 6.8). It retrieves micro-details a more effectively, revealing nuances that are less apparent in Isabellae (8.5 vs 6). Track elements feel a more isolated and clean on It, offering clearer focus than Isabellae (8.5 vs 6.3). It avoids frequency masking n more successfully, preserving clarity across the spectrum better than Isabellae (8.5 vs 5.5). Notes on It feel s more grounded and weighty, whereas Isabellae can sound thin or hollow (8.5 vs 6.5). It hits with a more authority during transients, creating a more explosive effect than Isabellae (7.5 vs 6). The upper range of vocals is overwhelmingly cleaner and more forgiving on It, helping it avoid sibilant harshness that Isabellae shows (9.5 vs 3.3). It renders timbres with s better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Isabellae (8.5 vs 6.3). Across the frequency range, It stays m more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than Isabellae (8.5 vs 6.5). It portrays textures in vocals and strings with m more realism, enhancing emotional depth over Isabellae (8 vs 6).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.