Mk12 Turrisvs.x Gizaudio DaVinci

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

Sound-wise, Mk12 Turris provides a evidently more refined presentation, with improved detail retrieval, microdynamics, and instrument layering when compared to x Gizaudio DaVinci (7.8 vs 6.5). From the connector housings to the shell seams, It demonstrates barely tighter tolerances and higher production standards. The included cable with x Gizaudio DaVinci shows considerably better strain relief and physical resilience. It's accessories are markedly better curated, reflecting greater attention to usability, presentation, and value-added content compared to Mk12 Turris.

Sound Characteristics

Mk12 Turris delivers a tighter sub-bass response, controlling low-end rumble with more precision than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 7.3). It adds a more body and slam to bass hits, which makes it feel more physical than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 7.8). The lower midrange on It blends m more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in x Gizaudio DaVinci (9 vs 7.2). In the upper mids, It sounds a clearer and more articulate, highlighting vocals and lead instruments better than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8 vs 6.8). Instruments like violins and brass are portrayed with s more brilliance on It, while x Gizaudio DaVinci sounds slightly dull (9 vs 6.3). The highest frequencies on It feel c more natural and less rolled-off compared to x Gizaudio DaVinci (9 vs 5.8). It paints a m broader sonic landscape, offering better instrument positioning across the stage (8 vs 6.2). With m higher resolution, It allows finer textures and room ambiance to shine more than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6). In complex arrangements, It separates layers s more distinctly, preventing overlap that x Gizaudio DaVinci occasionally suffers (8.5 vs 6.3). Instruments remain intelligible on It even during busy sections, showing s better handling of masking than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 7). The note presentation is a fuller and more tactile on It, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6.5). Percussion and quick attacks feel a more physical and punchy on It, adding excitement over x Gizaudio DaVinci (7.5 vs 6.8). It handles sibilant sounds overwhelmingly more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than x Gizaudio DaVinci (9.5 vs 4.3). It renders timbres with a better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 7.8). It achieves d better tonal neutrality, avoiding colorations present in x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6.5). It renders texture a more precisely, making instrument surfaces and vocal grain more palpable than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8 vs 6).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.