Mk12 Turrisvs.Project Meta

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 slightly better articulation, helping listeners uncover nuances often missed with Project Meta. For comfort fit, It performs subtly better (7.3 vs 6.5). Craftsmanship-wise, It feels clearly more meticulously assembled, reflecting a level of engineering and attention to detail that elevates the product. Users may find the Project Meta cable significantly more confidence-inspiring for both daily use and long-term durability. Compared to Mk12 Turris, the overall accessory offering from It is evidently more aligned with the expectations of discerning audiophiles.

Sound Characteristics

Mk12 Turris produces sub-bass that is m more textured and present in cinematic or bass-heavy tracks (8.5 vs 6.3). It enhances basslines with m more energy and grip, giving them a livelier feel compared to Project Meta (8 vs 6.3). The bass in It feels m more physical and textured, with improved rumble and body compared to Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.7). The lower midrange on It blends a more smoothly into the bass region, avoiding the disconnect found in Project Meta (9 vs 6.8). In the upper mids, It sounds s clearer and more articulate, highlighting vocals and lead instruments better than Project Meta (8 vs 6.2). The treble on It is m more nuanced and refined, especially when it comes to cymbals and ambient elements (9 vs 7.5). The upper treble of It extends m further, offering more sparkle and openness than Project Meta (9 vs 6.8). The stereo field on It feels s wider and more holographic, whereas Project Meta sounds more intimate (8 vs 6.3). The retrieval of faint audio cues on It is m more convincing, while Project Meta tends to gloss over them (8.5 vs 6.3). In complex arrangements, It separates layers d more distinctly, preventing overlap that Project Meta occasionally suffers (8.5 vs 6.7). It keeps competing frequencies under control m more effectively, reducing sonic congestion compared to Project Meta (8.5 vs 6). The note presentation is a fuller and more tactile on It, giving instruments a stronger physical presence than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.3). It delivers m stronger slam and physicality, making drums and transients hit harder than Project Meta (7.5 vs 6). It handles sibilant sounds a more gently, with fewer peaks and less sharpness than Project Meta (9.5 vs 6.5). It renders timbres with c better harmonic balance, preserving the character of instruments more accurately than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6). Across the frequency range, It stays s more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than Project Meta (8.5 vs 6.3). It portrays textures in vocals and strings with a more realism, enhancing emotional depth over Project Meta (8 vs 5.5).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.