RspSupra

I have the upgraded Mark Livingston stereo in my 08 ISF. The sub blew and they replaced it for free but it still doesn't sound good. Is this normal? I've had a blown sub for awhile so I can't remember how it should sound. Is the sub just a POS? Any recommendations for something better would be great.

Thanks,
Mark

7No

iTrader: (1)

Search on Boxology. I have their custom box in my F with a 10" sub. Sounds MUCH better than the ML.

J2K

^ +1..... the stock sub is weak. I'll be adding a boxology box and ID sub very soon.

gqisf

Just had my ML sub relplaced a few days ago and it sounds solid. Maybe there was an issue with the installation of yours. Did yours just perform poorly prior to you getting it replaced, or did it rattle like hell as mine did?

dinardalvi

which sub did you get? Did you change the existing system?

7No

iTrader: (1)

I got separate amps for sub and the rest of the system mated with a Rockford Fosgate signal processor. The amps are JLs. I don't have more details - am on the road right now. The amps are mounted underneath the front seats so as to not steal trunk space. It's a good ticket deterrent because if I can't hear my radar detector, I don't speed. :-)

BLKFIN

iTrader: (1)

I took out my factory sub and added the Boxolgy enclosure, an Image Dynamic 12" and it's own amp paired with the rest of the factory set up and it sounds amazing. The ML sub is the weak link of the factory system.

meade916

I LOVE LEXUS but they dropped the ball bigtime with the ML system. It is so weak its pathetic. My boy has a stock '11 CTS-V and i had it the other day while putting his Stainless Exhaust on....took it for a test drive around town and its just no contest.....GM (stock) BOSE>ML. I hate to say that because im not a fan of Bose either. It is what it is. I know i am known for it, but i dont need ridiculous amounts of bass........but i do need a little, just a little, and the ML falls flat on its face. I like the deck and interface with the navi A LOT.......but it dont sound as great as the dealer would like you to believe as he is bragging it up on the lot trying to make the sale. lol

If you want your system to sound good, you need to upgrade.

meade916

you probably have a "3sixty.x" (as in .1 or .2) in your ride and that is what i recommend to everyone who wants to tap in to the stock setup and get clean RCA's out for new amps. Not to mention the FULL CONTROL you will have over processing once you do it.

I am personally waiting on the 3sixty.3 to come out, i am supposed to get the prototype from Rockford Fosgate any day now so i can get started.


i am jealous of you guys who upgraded because i want to so bad!!! I have 3sixty.2's layin' around but i want the newest model because it will be so much better!!

hahahaf

iTrader: (2)

i love my ml, very crystal clear highs and lows
and i know a thing or two about sound

rpISF

The ML does produce very high quality sound. The problem most IS-F owners with it is the lack of power, especially bass. The ML can make classical instruments and vocals sound phenomenal, but turn up a rock or hip hop song and it quickly shows its lack of power. It actually does pretty good for most rock songs, but anything with hard bass equals FAIL. I guess this is where one system doesn't fit all. The ML is great for most typical Lexus drivers, but lacks power for most in the IS-F target audience (yes I know that was a big generalization). I for one will likely add a Boxology enclosure and a JL 10" W7 in the not-so-distant future.

ERDoc74

Hey Meade, my local stereo guys are reccomending the JL Audio Clean Sweep or the Audison Bit One over the Fosgate 3sixty.x..... I'm not too up on this stuff as much as home stereo equip... Whhat's you're thoughts??? (I'm thinking about JL audio component speakers and amps too btw.)

meade916

sounds to me like they dont carry RF.


I would NEVER recommend the clean-sweep over a 3sixty.1 or .2. There is just no comparison. I really like JL audio so thats not my problem....its just that the Cleansweep is a glorified L.O.C. (line output converter) where the 3sixty has MULTIPLE 31 band eq's, its got time alignment and much MUCH more then i can list while half asleep here. (google one or go to the RF website to see). The JL does its job well, i have used them before........BUT you have no control over it (like a L.O.C.) after its installed. The RF, you pull up on a Palm Pilot or a Windows laptop and you take control over every single detail via bluetooth.

I have never used a bit-one but that one would be a better comparison to the RF unit. I know people who do use them and they seem to like them. I believe it has 8 channels compared to RF's 6. But that doesnt matter........because the 3sixty.3 that is soon coming out will have 8. That would be the ONLY advantage the bit-one has over the RF and soon, in a month or so, that will be over.

meade916

nice highs......although not very loud. But lows? this thing SUCKS *** on lows. It has none. Its like it doesnt even have a woofer at all ......and i know a thing or two about sound also. I dont think it needs 50,0000 million trillion watts to be cool. I think for being stock, the woofer needs at least 200 MORE watts and a BETTER sub. IMO, the highs need at least 150-200 more as well. Thats not asking much, i can scrape my feet across the carpet and generate 200 watts on my finger. LOL

Go listen to a CTS-V, or a XLR-V if you get a chance. Now THAT is what a stock system in a premium car should sound like. That is from someone who doesnt like Bose that much.

ERDoc74

Hey thanks for the info Meade!!!. The guys were trying to tell me that the simplicity of the Clean Sweep is it's advantage.... But I'll take your advice and go with the RF unit if I do this upgrade... Another stupid question for you... Would just upgrading the amps for the mids and highs but leaving the same speakers in make a significant improvement?? (of course would replace the sub and need a signal processor such as the 3sixty.3. ). Just thinking of ways to try to save some coin.... LOL. Or do I really need to replace all the speakers?