None of the above. If your going for loudness and SPL then by all means go for the 10-15 speaker option. If going for sq or sound quality then keep it simple and targeted. I recently took our 2009 Lexus RX 350 with it's Pioneer 3 piece front speakers and had it tuned in properly by a professional audio shop. After thinking about upgrading the factory speakers and willing to lay out some serious cash on Hertz, Hybrid Audio, Scan speak, Audisons I was advised by the acoustic pro not to. I said "come again?". He went on to explain the speakers in the RX were adequate and simply fixing the timing of the speakers, phase adjustment, slope etc and adding a dedicated power to each speaker via an amp would transform the system. He was correct. It's NOT about the AMOUNT of speakers you have but fine tuning what you have.
On a hunch went to another "A" audio shop in town where one of the gents is a national circuit ISCA sound competition judge to get a second opinion. He listened to my stock factory Pioneers and deemed them very good. Staging of sound on the dash was exceptional as well as the mid range. A little dullness in the highs as it seems to "roll off" quickly(think a cymbal that has that last tiny minute high ting! Missing) and the mid bass was great. After 15 minutes he flat out said you don't need any speakers. Nothing in his shop he said would make it night and day sort of replacement. I thanked him for his time.
How many shops do you know turn down potential 2k-3k sales?
This is my point. More is not better. All sound competition are won by two way-three way systems. Never have I seen a fifteen speaker car win.

 

Kinda surprised none of you "audiophiles" mention the materials that are used for the speakers. For example, the difference in sound from a tweeter out of aluminum vs a silk one is HUGE. What are the materials used for our cars? Stock system & ML system? Personally I prefer a silk dome over an aluminum one. I always end up replacing my speakers with FOCAL anyways, but the stock system doesn't sound bad to me. I've tried looking up the materials used in the stock system, but no luck..

 

I found this for the GS ML 17 speaker system. I suspect our RC F ML is quite similar with regard to materials.

> Five Unity Extended Bandwidth speakers (two speakers in each: a 90 mm midrange and 16 mm tweeter)

> Two 180 x 250 mm HiE woofers with aramid composite cones and neodymium magnets

> Two 25 mm titanium dome tweeters with neodymium magnets

> Two 170 mm HiE midwoofers

> One 250 mm double opposing magnet subwoofer with aramid composite cones

> Plus: an 835-watt Class D DSP amplifier

 

Sound quality also has to do with the acoustics of the car itself, but I can say that the ML system in my GS is FANTASTIC and if the RC has a similar system it should sound great as well.

 

Thanks! =)

 

Only if you're dealing with subpar components! I have a couple of aluminum tweeters where you may think they're actually silk just because they don't have the typical nasty characteristics of cheaper metal tweeters. Most harsh sounding tweeters (metal and silk) lack a good crossover network. Doesn't help that half the time the tweeters are facing the dashboard or the windshield. Obviously the environment plays one of the biggest factor in determining the end result.

 

This. The ML system in my IS-F SUCKED. It was one of the reasons I traded it for an RS-5.

 

It's all in the hearing. We all hear differently. Some love a reference system that reproduces sound based on the artist's recording, while others wish to alter the frequencies.

There is no right or wrong here--just owner preferences.

 

Agreed, but the B&O system in audis is a higher quality than the ML and I think Lexus should up the ante a bit in their sound systems.

 

I have the ML in my 2012 ISF and ordered the new ML in the RC F carbon TVD. I honestly have only read about the system. I have yet to hear it.

It's so difficult matching the person to the system. I know from my escapades in home audio purchases--an endless pursuit with debatable gains.

 

One other problem with the ML in my IS-F in addition to the lack of bass was the difference between satellite radio stations and anything else. With the B&O in my RS-5 it is hard to tell the difference between the types of input. Satellite stations in the IS-F sounded "tinny" in comparison.

 

Hmmm...Honestly, I get excellent sound quality from the satellite radio stations. I wonder if there was something wrong with your ML...I do not get a tinny sound.

 

I had an IS350 with ML and satellite radio and I agree the sound quality was lacking but the ML playing other sources was really good. So I think it was a poor satellite system/antenna in the 2IS. Adjusting the bass and treble settings helped some but overall it was disappointing. They do sound better in the RC F with ML though.

 

This is good to know. Thanks!

 

I presume everyone is aware of the difference between the IS F ML and the RC F ML: 300 versus 835 watts?

This is a night and day difference which will impact sound reproduction quality and audibility. With that said, I have not yet experienced the 835-watt system.