We sincerely appreciate Reviewer's thorough examination of our manuscript and the valuable insights provided. We have diligently incorporated the suggested changes to enhance the overall quality and coherence of the paper. Changes related to the comments of Reviewer# 1 are marked by blue colors in the manuscript. We believe that these revisions offer a distinct and effective response to the reviewer's feedback, leading to a more refined and impactful manuscript. We deeply appreciate the thoughtful critique and believe these enhancements contribute significantly to the overall strength of our research paper. 

Acknowledging the need for a more detailed discussion on uncertainties, we have included a section in the revised manuscript specifically addressing potential sources of uncertainty, with a focus on envelope misfits (please see lines#100-135). Additionally, we have provided error estimates for our attenuation values resulting from these misfits. The incorporation of error bars has been implemented into Fig.7 to visually represent and emphasize potential uncertainties. 

We have carefully reviewed and revised the main text to rectify instances where important words were missing, ensuring a more coherent context for each sentence. Paragraphs have been strategically divided into smaller sections to enhance readability, and sentence length has been adjusted for clarity. 

We appreciate the reviewer for bringing up this aspect. In response to the feedback, we have reorganized the Discussion and Conclusion section in the revised version. Conclusions now appear at the end of the manuscript as a new section, creating a more conclusive and coherent ending to the manuscript. We believe that the restructured Discussion section now better emphasizes key messages inferred from the outcomes of this work. Section 4.1 has been modified to focus more on the unique contributions of our study. Conclusions have been added to highlight the relevant points, such as partial melt. Interpreting the attenuation results, the presence of a partial melt, especially notable in conjunction with the zones of geo-electrical features implying elevated fluid-rich content in the crust. These zones exhibit a distinctive character marked by high and dominant intrinsic attenuation, indicating a correlation with the geological processes associated with partial melting and the presence of significant fluid content. Moving southeast, a noteworthy pattern is observed in the variation of attenuation parameters, particularly in connection with the Central Tauride Mountains. The observed gradual decrease in attenuation is linked to the geological evolution in this region. Specifically, it is associated with the high altitude of the Central Tauride Mountains that is proposed to be uplifted in response to slab break-off and subsequent mantle upwelling processes. These attenuation trends not only offer valuable insights into the geological complexities of the region but also contribute to new constraints on how seismic signals are influenced by the dynamic interplay of geological processes within Central Anatolia.  

When dividing the discussion section into sub-groups for the original manuscript, we intentionally focused on geographical regions showing distinct properties. Thus, we would like to keep this form of the discussion section. However, in the revised section, we swapped the first and second subsections in order to enhance the flow of the story and ensure proper logic between the sections/subsections.. Several minor revisions have been further made throughout the manuscript to improve overall clarity and presentation.  

We would like to express our gratitude to Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript, which has undoubtedly strengthened the robustness of our study. We have carefully addressed each of the major comments and suggestions, incorporating necessary changes to improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. Changes related to the comments of Reviewer# 2 are marked by red colors in the manuscript. We believe these revisions enhance the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript.  

• We have reformulated this section. The revised section has an improved flow now explaining synthetic and observed calculations of coda envelopes and how they are compared within the inversion process within their basic theoretical frames. Finally, we provide a simple stepwise procedure to indicate how g* and b are optimized. 
• We have explained the selection of S wave and coda wave windows by introducing the following sentences to lines 85-91 of the revised manuscript instead of the brief explanation. Also, the ‘smaller fit’ annotation is changed, and the sentence became more explanatory as in the current version being the following: ‘Thus, the bottom row in Fig. 5 representing the distance equal to 105 km, shows a smaller portion of the observed envelopes fit to the synthetic envelopes.’ 
• We appreciate the Reviewer# 2 for this suggestion. We agree with this point. In the revised manuscript we have made the requested changes by inserting reference figures to the results accordingly.  
• This study does not provide a concrete depth variation of attenuation parameters but intend to correlate with existing geophysical/geological constraints from other studies to make approximate depth interpretation.  
• We appreciate the Reviewer# 2 for this suggestion. This was the concern from the Reviewer# 1 too. We have separated the Discussion and Conclusion sections accordingly. We believe that the restructured Discussion section now better emphasizes key messages inferred from the outcomes of this work. Conclusions now appear at the end of the manuscript as a new section, creating a more conclusive and coherent ending to the manuscript.  
• We thank the Reviewer#2 for pointing out the errors between these lines. We have rephrased the sentences to correct grammatical errors and ensure adherence to the citation style.    
• Thank you for this correction. CAFZ is now marked by green in Figure 1. 
• Figure 2 in the original manuscript was adapted and modified from the figure in Abgarmi et al. (2017). In the revised version we provide a more detailed and recent topographical information. We further decreased the dominancy of the topography to highlight the plateau-like morphology. We further changed magenta colors to red, and labeled the Anatolide-Tauride block. Concerning Figure  1 and 4, thank you for your suggestion.  Now we use the same colormaps for these maps.  
• We appreciate the Reviewer#2 for this suggestion. Lighter colors now are used and the labels are implemented in the revised version of the manuscript. 
• Figure 4 is improved according to the reviewer’s comments. We used thicker edge colors for marking the stations, changed the position of the colorbar and completed the right edge of the figure. 
• Required changes at the request of reviewer #2 have been made accordingly. 
• We placed the colorbars outside the figures as suggested, so they became more visible. We do not show stations in black not to block the visible attenuation values at some the stations. To increase the visibility of station locations and maintain the background attenuation values still notable, however, we implement black edge colors for the triangles. In the revised version we present all the labels on the same map (i.e. 0.75Hz-Total Attenuation map). However, we still keep some specific labels at their original positions. This is because they correspond to specific regions with characteristic attenuation values of a different frequency band interpreted in Discussion section.