FLYCT

I've had ML radios in our 2009 LS460, 2012 CT200h and both our 2007 and 2008 SC430's.

The ML in the LS460 was outstanding, SC430's were decent and the CT200h was weak.

Mark Levinson systems in RXs on dealer lots here in Florida are rare. The sales guy told me that current standard radio in the RX is equivalent to ML two years ago.

I'm reading here that the ML in the 2016 RXs do not have much punch and there are issues with balance. Since I will probably will be ordering a 2017 RXh in the next month or so, if the ML doesn't offer significant improvement over the Standard radio I would opt out.

What is the consensus of current owners?

s4iscool

I love it. It's got sound imaging that most aren't used to because it's more realistic with the front center balance. Plenty of bass punch too with quality sources of music. Xm still sounds terrible

Curryolla

The CT has never had ML in the United States. And, the system in the LS 460 is in a class way above the RX system.

Audio is a very personal thing. When I test drove an RX 450h (with ML) and an RX F SPORT (without ML), I was able to hear a big difference in many of the jazz charts in my phone. But, other music was not better or worse. I recommend testing the system, with the music you like from the source you like and will use. This part is key. CD vs. Radio, vs. Auxiliary will all have different sound quality.

patsfan2

Mine is standard audio. I am not much of an audio guy but all my friends who heard the standard kept asking me what is the audio system in it. Everyone loves the sound from standard speakers. I would say hear the both but you will not even worry about it once you get the standard audio. Its more than sufficient for most people.

I am sure Lexus will help you test both.

FLYCT

Thanks for the correction about the CT audio system. You're correct. I had the Premium Audio system, 10 speakers. even though it was highest factory audio option it didn't have much punch.

bootman

Imaging is so much better in the ML system.
There is no bad seat vs stock where the driver has the best seat audio wise.

PCW

I have a 2016 RX with ML. Previously I had a 2013 RX with ML. The 2016 ML is in a league of it's own compared to previous systems. I play most of my music from my iPhone and this new ML system has software that recognizes compressed music, such as the MP3 format, and uncompresses it as close to original as possible. You definitely need to audition it with the music you will play.

asheville

Give me a true Flac or Wave file in a standard system vs any type of "up convert" processing any day. Sorry, but it is not uncompressing it. It may be up converting it, but you cannot uncompress it. Maybe it's the same as dvd to blue ray up convert. Yea, it's a little bitter, but never as good as a blu ray.

I tested the ML vs the standard, and couldn't tell the difference. (my test wasn't very scientific however. I listened to one and then 30 minutes listened to another. Used AUX input with same source. A true test would be hopping back and forth between the two with critical ears) I listen to pop and rock however. I could care less about stereo imaging for rest of car, as 95 percent of normal passengers will never notice the difference.

billh556

I have the ML in my 4G RX and love it. Great clarity and imaging. Yes, it is front-biased, but it presents a great realistic sound. The feature RCW mentioned also works great for satellite radio's compressed sound. XM is what I listen to in the car almost exclusively, and the ML processing of compressed sources makes it sound much better than it has any right to.

Baxter64

No punch..??!!

I think not.

asheville

This is music that is produced to be very bass heavy. The complaint is "normal" music lacks bottom end. Not many people listen to this style of music.

Baxter64

Sounds like typical radio music to me.

Name a title and artist, what are you calling a 'normal song' ??

Any sound system that sounds like in that YT clip, will sound good with any song.

aznkorboi

With any sound system with an amp you have to increase the volume to enjoy the music.

also, they tuned the ML system so that it sounds surround around your head ONLY if you have your head on the headrest.

I listened to the regular one and didn't like it. Felt like it drowned out the mids and the highs were muted.

The ML system at first sounded too harsh. I forgot that you have to break in the sub. Played it for a month and now it's one of the best systems I've listened to.

You know it's a good sound system when you don't have to mess with the settings. Everything of mine is at 0 but I like a little bit of punch to it so I have the bass at 3 with the EQ slightly behind the driver.

For me, I feel the full effect at volumes over 30. Anything below and you don't feel the bass at all so it pretty much sounds like some other users say, mono speakers.

asheville

That music was trance/electronic music. That music's bass levels are always way higher when the album is recorded and mastered. I have some of it on my Ipod. I literally have to adjust the bass almost every single time.

Normal music for me :Tom Petty, Zeppelin, Van Halen, Death Cab for Cutie, Foo fighters. However music lately is being produced much more "hotter" and bass heavy. Take an early AC/DC record and compare it with say Nickel back, and it's two different worlds.

This is why tuning a system is so hard. You tune it to one type of music, then the next song was recorded entirely different. The fact of the matter is, without aftermarket speakers, amps, subs and a processor, it's just never going to be 'great' from a factory system. We have to settle for what they give us, because switching it out is way to destructive or time consuming.

gorcorps

This isn't exactly true. It uses an approximation to fill in the gaps based on the available data, but can't really know for certain that it got it right because the data is gone. You can't uncompress a lossy file. The data is gone, there's nothing you can do about that. High quality mp3s still sound great though, so the fact that it's "compressed" doesn't mean you can't get good sound quality out of it... it's just not going to be lossless.


It's a process called Clari-Fi, and they kind of explain it on their website:
http://www.clarifisound.com/


It's similar to how 120Hz TVs have "smoothing" features to make 60Hz content look closer to 120Hz. It has to use an approximation, so you end up with an image that kind of looks like a soap opera. A lot of people hate this filtering on TVs (like me) and turn it off.


I'm not sure how this presents in Clari-Fi audio, but it certainly isn't "uncompressing" anything. It's just trying to fill in the gaps in compression with an average that it THINKS should be there, but can never be sure.