Mark Levinson vs. LS460 stock audio system
Thread Starter
Driver School Candidate
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: NY
Mark Levinson vs. LS460 stock audio system
How much a sound quality difference between Mark Levinson and the LS460 stock audio? I listen to music mostly while driving as there's too much distraction at home to just sit down and listen to music, so a wonderful car audio is nice thing to have, and it makes traffic jams more bearable. Is ML worth the extra $$ over the stock. There're 19 speakers in ML, where are they placed thru out the cabin? Does it have a noise canceling function? How about after market upgrade?
Pit Crew
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
From: Texas
Let me tell you how it is. If you have not purchased a LS 460 yet -please get the ML system. It is well worth the extra for this system. I purchased a LS without the ML system. I thought I would just upgrade the premium sound. But I have found out that it will cost somewhere in the $4K range to upgrade this system. Change out the speakers, add an amp. for the speaker and one for the sub woofer, sub woofer, and custom amp enclosure for the trunk. Now I have been told that the aftermarket system totally blows away the ML system. I suspect that is true from the people that have upgraded their LS 460. But I have a problem when selling the car that the upgraded system with not be worth anything unless you remove it. But it is much easier to just buy the LS with the ML system already in it and not have to deal with the upgrade. AND YES it does make a big difference in the sound from the factory premium and the ML system. Just sit in each and you will know.
jarm
jarm
Lead Lap
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 740
Likes: 12
From: ca
the stock is just an average sound system in one of the quietest vehicles on the road. It lends itself to a great sound system. The ML is very good, if you are not into higher end audio gear than it will more than suffice and is worth the upgrade.
I didnt find it worked for my tastes, but we each have our own preferences. I picked mine up with the standard system and then put in 3k more to build it out that way I wanted it with Focal components and JL. I could not be happier, but then it was a lot of patience and tuning to get it just right.
If you dont normally upgrade your audio systems and have a background in doing so, then yes the ML would be the way to go, it is a very good sounding upgrade.
I didnt find it worked for my tastes, but we each have our own preferences. I picked mine up with the standard system and then put in 3k more to build it out that way I wanted it with Focal components and JL. I could not be happier, but then it was a lot of patience and tuning to get it just right.
If you dont normally upgrade your audio systems and have a background in doing so, then yes the ML would be the way to go, it is a very good sounding upgrade.
Thread Starter
Driver School Candidate
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: NY
Thanks for the advise, you made my decision easier. I haven't bought the car yet, I am still searching as I still have 6 weeks left on my lease, I'll definitely add ML to my must have list.
Pole Position
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 26
From: Sakon Nakhon
There's a demo on this page: Mark Levinson Reference System
Although the ML system is hailed as arguably the best available system anywhere, it wasn't for me. I had it in my 460 & 600, and it spent most of the time off, as I valued the serenity of the cars' quietness more than the audio features. My wife used it more than I did, but when she was in the car, the rule was, "ML off before noon, low volume after that". So, she could really only blast it when I was not in the car, and I would only personally listen to it only when the car was stationary.
I avoided ML when I purchased my new RX...
Although the ML system is hailed as arguably the best available system anywhere, it wasn't for me. I had it in my 460 & 600, and it spent most of the time off, as I valued the serenity of the cars' quietness more than the audio features. My wife used it more than I did, but when she was in the car, the rule was, "ML off before noon, low volume after that". So, she could really only blast it when I was not in the car, and I would only personally listen to it only when the car was stationary.
I avoided ML when I purchased my new RX...
Trending Topics
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
8 Tips for Improving Your Hybrid or Plug-in Hybrid's Efficiency!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Best Lexus Models No One Remembers
Joe Kucinski
TRD Off-Road Premium: Best 2026 4Runner, Except This One Thing
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Lexus & Toyotas to Drive Before You Die!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Lexus/Toyotas With The LEAST 5-Year Depreciation
Joe Kucinski
Lexus LC500 Convertible Auction: A Preview of Rising Values?
Brett Foote
GX 550 vs TX 550: Best 3-Row Luxury Lexus Family Hauler
Michael S. Palmer
9 Best Lexus Models You Can Buy for Half Price (And 1 You Shouldn't!)
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus NX Buyer's Guide: Models, Features, Prices & More!
Brett Foote
Pole Position
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
Likes: 1
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I guess I am misinformed. I thought that FM was very much better than AM or satellite quality and, in fact, approaches that of CD quality. Also, mp3 quality depends on the bit rate etc. under which it was created. If you use the best mp3 quality when ripping a CD it will produce close to original quality. Am I wrong?
Moderator
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,761
Likes: 72
From: Atlanta, GA
I guess I am misinformed. I thought that FM was very much better than AM or satellite quality and, in fact, approaches that of CD quality. Also, mp3 quality depends on the bit rate etc. under which it was created. If you use the best mp3 quality when ripping a CD it will produce close to original quality. Am I wrong?
Driver
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 161
Likes: 1
From: Corona Del Mar, CA
FM is not close to cd quality. Like i said - cd's are good (if you use best quality mp3 or aac). its on a CD!!! Thus digital.
i stand by my statements - am sucks, fm sucks, satellite sucks, ipod/iphone music sucks. CD/DVDs are good.
am - analog
fm - analog
fm HD - digital but at lower bit rate
ipod/iphone - analog
satellite - digital but at a low bit rate
cd's digital at original bit rate
dvd's digital at original bit rate
cd's with 192mp3 (or above) or 192 (or above) aac - digital and good sounding.
Buying an ML system is a total waste of money unless you use digital (CD's/DVD's)
i stand by my statements - am sucks, fm sucks, satellite sucks, ipod/iphone music sucks. CD/DVDs are good.
am - analog
fm - analog
fm HD - digital but at lower bit rate
ipod/iphone - analog
satellite - digital but at a low bit rate
cd's digital at original bit rate
dvd's digital at original bit rate
cd's with 192mp3 (or above) or 192 (or above) aac - digital and good sounding.
Buying an ML system is a total waste of money unless you use digital (CD's/DVD's)
I guess I am misinformed. I thought that FM was very much better than AM or satellite quality and, in fact, approaches that of CD quality. Also, mp3 quality depends on the bit rate etc. under which it was created. If you use the best mp3 quality when ripping a CD it will produce close to original quality. Am I wrong?
Driver
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 1
From: ma
Why is it that you have to turn the ML system up to about 30 on the volume before it really sounds nice or even loud enough to really hear? does anyone else notice this or am I just deaf after all the loud music over the years?
