bootman

Audio response should be set as flat as possible.
After that, if the music doesn't sound good then it is the recording.

Onion

Is there a difference with AUX bluetooth or USB input? which one gives the best output?

tomtom74

It's not so much about what type of input to use. It's depend on what types of music file is used. Higher the bit rates makes sound better. If you use low format music file then you not going to get great sound, no matter what type of sound system you got. But if you choose right format of music file then ML system make big difference over standard system.

If you want to hear great sound of music then never shrink music file to save file size.

Onion

I think last time I saw people were complaining about Bluetooth compress the music before sending it to the car

integroid

I was on the fence before I went to the dealer as they had a vehicle with and without the day that I purchased. The imaging in the ML RX is leaps and bounds better than the standard. The actual sound quality was only marginally better imho. I went with the ML RX because I thought the imaging was worth the extra money and the dealer gave me a better deal on the ML RX.

Baxter64

USB is superior than a BT stream in any vehicle.

Bearcat

To be honest, not very impressed with ML in my 450h, but then I drove their loaner and egads, the regular one is abysmal.

QUOTE=s4iscool;9554632]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 [/QUOTE]

gadgetman1

When I was shopping, I had the salesman park a regular audio RX next to a ML RX and I used my iPhone iTunes using a USB connection. I tried the same songs, so I could get a feel for the differences. There were differences and the ML system sounded better, but to me, not $1500 (or whatever the cost) better. That was my personal opinion. Even the salesman was not impressed with the ML system side by side in the same type of vehicle. I was disappointed, as I had always heard that the ML system was truly something to be had.

lexnewbi

The Bluetooth Audio streaming audio uses A2DP: Advanced Audio Distribution Profile. This profile compresses audio in one of several formats depending on those that are supported and the Bluetooth bandwidth available. These compression formats (called codecs) can be SBC (pretty low complexity: not CD quality), MP3, or AAC (can be close to CD quality depending on data rates), and aptX (in between SBC and MP3 for audio quality). To put it in perspective, CD audio requires 1.4Mbits/sec. Near CD quality AAC uses about 256Kbits/sec. MP3 would be close to 320Kbits/sec for near CD quality. If the song is already compressed with MP3 or AAC, it can be transferred in that format. However, very few manufacturers support all these compression engines to minimize licensing costs and opt for the mandatory one (SBC) or for Qualcomm's aptX compression. These are not as good as MP3 and much less than AAC at 320Kbits/sec, so typically Bluetooth audio does not sound as good as direct AAC or MP3 playback.

A2DP profile allows up to 320Kbits/sec for mono and 512Kbits/sec for stereo. Thus, it can provide the data rates for close to CD quality with AAC, MP3, but will not be true CD quality that USB can provide with 1.4Mbits/sec.

Note that old Bluetooth version 1.x and 2.x allowed at best 721Kbits/sec for total throughput. In real life, a lot of this data includes headers and other stuff, so the real throughput is significantly less. Then add retransmissions due to interference and the data rates can drop to 300kbits/sec. With Bluetooth v4.x, t can transfer up to 25mbit/sec, so CD quality is possible, but very few systems support these rates and much less the high quality compression.

From the specs, 2017 RX supports A2DP v1.3 that supports all the compression engines, but it does not specify which ones are implemented.
In summary, for best audio quality use USB connections.

jimos

I did the same thing, but did you know there are 3 different audio options?
"LEXUS DISPLAY AUDIO WITH COLOR MULTIMEDIA DISPLAY AND NINE SPEAKERS"
"LEXUS 12-SPEAKER PREMIUM SOUND SYSTEM"
"15-speaker Mark Levinson Premium Surround Sound Audio* System"

I'm no audiophile, but yes, there were small differences, but not worth the extra cost IMO. And that's in a quiet parked environment, and with road and engine noise, most of the differences would be muted. Still wound up with the ML because of other options.

FastFord

Sound is pretty objective. What sounds good to one might sound ok to another. Different styles of music, how loud, how frequently do you use the system, etc. I find the ML a good system and enjoy listening to it. Of course 30 years of playing the drums, my hearing is $*&%!

gadgetman1

I DID NOT know that - thank you for sharing this! I read various models on line stating they had 9 or 12 speakers & I assumed it was a typo on the dealer's part. It makes total sense now. I have the 12 speaker premium system & I'm very pleased. Great clarity in all types of music.

s2000zr

I enjoy the ML on this Lexus more than any other option. i.e. Pano roof, HUD, triple LED. 360view and so on....

toyotaman7

I love the ML in my RX. It's not just the sound level and base it produces, it's the sound quality and clarity.

computerwi

Was never able to compare the base audio with the ML system (I have the ML system), but the sound is not as good as in my IS with ML. While ML in the RX isn't bad, it just doesn't have the same vehicle filling presence. I think it's due to the acoustics of the vehicle. I've somewhere the sedans inherently are better due to speaker placement, particularly the ability to place speakers in the rear deck of sedans.