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

Mk12 Turris delivers noticeably better sound reproduction, offering a more immersive and engaging experience overall. Its tonal balance, clarity, and spatial imaging stand out clearly compared to x Gizaudio DaVinci (7.8 vs 6.5). The tactile feel and solidity of It suggest faintly greater robustness and longevity compared to the more fragile impression left by x Gizaudio DaVinci. Users may find the x Gizaudio DaVinci cable considerably more confidence-inspiring for both daily use and long-term durability. Regarding included accessories, It offers a significantly more complete and useful package, which may include additional tips, a better case, or enhanced extras.

Sound Characteristics

Mk12 Turris produces sub-bass that is a more textured and present in cinematic or bass-heavy tracks (8.5 vs 7.3). It translates bass vibrations into a a more visceral experience, while x Gizaudio DaVinci lacks this tactile feedback (8.5 vs 7.8). Male vocals and lower instruments sound s richer and better defined on It, unlike x Gizaudio DaVinci which can seem hollow (9 vs 7.2). It strikes a e better balance between presence and smoothness in the upper mids compared to 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 a more natural and less rolled-off compared to x Gizaudio DaVinci (9 vs 5.8). Listeners may notice that It presents sounds with m more lateral space, giving recordings more openness than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8 vs 6.2). It extracts low-level details a more effectively, helping subtle nuances emerge clearer than on x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6). Track elements feel a more isolated and clean on It, offering clearer focus than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6.3). It avoids frequency masking a more successfully, preserving clarity across the spectrum better than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 7). It adds s more body and density to musical notes, enriching the overall texture compared to x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6.5). It hits with a more authority during transients, creating a more explosive effect than x Gizaudio DaVinci (7.5 vs 6.8). The upper range of vocals is overwhelmingly cleaner and more forgiving on It, helping it avoid sibilant harshness that x Gizaudio DaVinci shows (9.5 vs 4.3). Timbre on It sounds s more realistic and natural, whereas x Gizaudio DaVinci feels slightly more artificial or colored (8.5 vs 7.8). Across the frequency range, It stays m more consistent in tonal balance, resulting in a smoother listen than x Gizaudio DaVinci (8.5 vs 6.5). It portrays textures in vocals and strings with a more realism, enhancing emotional depth over x Gizaudio DaVinci (8 vs 6).

Tonal Signature

// Nothing to compare yet.