Second Generation 17 Speaker Lexicon Stereo System

[Nikgen]

Perhaps I've been lucky so far (not real head unit issues), but from what I've read on the forums, this is the right statement. Cheapening the system is not the way to make it more reliable. The sound quality of the Gen 1 is really, really good. Anything less in the Gen 2 is a disappointment.

Hopefully a mid model refresh will address the sound quality and bring it back up to par.

I have never heard a Gen 1, but find the sound quality in my Gen 2 Ultimate to be really, really good as well - not lacking for me at all and I use high end components in my home system, so consider myself to be a critical listener.

 

[craigt]

I have never heard a Gen 1, but find the sound quality in my Gen 2 Ultimate to be really, really good as well - not lacking for me at all and I use high end components in my home system, so consider myself to be a critical listener.

I have never heard the Gen 2. My comments are based off of those who have heard both.

 

[greekgeek]

I have only heard the gen 2. It's awesome for a factory stereo. biggest weakspot IMO is the low end response, bass is lacking.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

I have only heard the gen 2. It's awesome for a factory stereo. biggest weakspot IMO is the low end response, bass is lacking.

In that case I'd put one of those bass tubes that have the amplifier inside in the trunk and call it a day...

 

[craigt]

I have only heard the gen 2. It's awesome for a factory stereo. biggest weakspot IMO is the low end response, bass is lacking.

That has been the theme between the Gen 1 and Gen 2. The former has some pretty smackin' bass.

 

[kmax1980]

I have the 14 speaker Lexicon, I dont think there is a huge difference to the 17 speaker other than surround effects.

A couple things I've noticed as others have said, the high bass 90-150hz is very boomy and uncontrolled. It seems they set the crossover way too low in the front door speakers as they seem like they are being abused during tracks heavy with bass. The rear parcel subwoofer should be handling all this and the door speakers cutoff should be much higher.

Second thing I noticed, is that the system seems tuned for a very narrow range of music that sounds very good on it. As I see it, the system lacks "flexibility" that a better stereos offer.

All in all, I can't really complain for the cost of the car. It seems in line with it's place in the market and is far better than any of the luxury car's base systems. It is, however, far behind my previous 2011 5 series Harmon system which could handle almost any kind of music at very loud levels, which had a much better under seat subwoofer chamber design. But you always get what you pay for to some degree!

 

[StangKiller]

This might sound crazy, but I think the speakers need some burn in time. I've had the car (2015) for about 2 months now. Day 1 played with ALL the settings and complained on this forum about how the system just sounded so lifeless.

Well 2 months on, it's actually noticeably better. It's not great, I still stand by that, but I think after a few 100 on the odo, I started to notice the system sounding clearer, louder, all around more dynamic. Maybe it will get better for the OP in time.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

Ultimately though, I will have to add a bit more low end. It's performing better now, but still miles away from my what I'd be truly happy with. Good luck OP.

+1

As weird as this sounds, my system sounds noticably better after 6 months and 3000 miles. Very strange.

 

[FastDEW1]

I have the 14 speaker Lexicon, I dont think there is a huge difference to the 17 speaker other than surround effects.

A couple things I've noticed as others have said, the high bass 90-150hz is very boomy and uncontrolled. It seems they set the crossover way too low in the front door speakers as they seem like they are being abused during tracks heavy with bass. The rear parcel subwoofer should be handling all this and the door speakers cutoff should be much higher.

Second thing I noticed, is that the system seems tuned for a very narrow range of music that sounds very good on it. As I see it, the system lacks "flexibility" that a better stereos offer.

All in all, I can't really complain for the cost of the car. It seems in line with it's place in the market and is far better than any of the luxury car's base systems. It is, however, far behind my previous 2011 5 series Harmon system which could handle almost any kind of music at very loud levels, which had a much better under seat subwoofer chamber design. But you always get what you pay for to some degree!

I have never heard the 14 speaker system. But the 17 speaker (probably not much difference) is very good for any price range. I disagree, in that this system sounds very good - I can compare to very high end units, including the Bermester in the 2014 S Class. The Bermester has more bass, but the Lexicon is smoother on the highs.

The only system I have heard that is rock solid the best above any other was in a Maserati - the sound was absolutely amazing at any level. But the controls sucked. lol

 

[JBoogie]

I just traded in my 12 5.0 for a 3.8 AWD and the 12's 17 spkr system was much better. My wife asked if 3 spkrs really make that much difference.. I said "i guess so"

If you really want to hear a EXCELLENT stereo system. Check out the New 2016 Volvo XC90 with the Bowers and Wilkins system!! It is Phenomenal!! The best $2500 option you can pay for in a vehicle!! You have to hear it to believe it!!

 

[craigt]

A bit outdated, but worth a read:
http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/car-audio/high-end-stock-stereo-sound-off.html

I went from an Acura TL with the "winning system" to the Lexicon 17. I find the Lexicon has a bit more bass. Note that the review, which happened in 2009, was with the Lexicon 14.

A newer comparo:
http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/comparison-test-high-end-car-audio/2/

Note the prices of the other cars.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[Aquineas]

A bit outdated, but worth a read:
http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/car-audio/high-end-stock-stereo-sound-off.html

I went from an Acura TL with the "winning system" to the Lexicon 17. I find the Lexicon has a bit more bass. Note that the review, which happened in 2009, was with the Lexicon 14.

A newer comparo:
http://www.autos.ca/auto-tech/comparison-test-high-end-car-audio/2/

Note the prices of the other cars.

Great links! The second article got the speaker count wrong though.

 

[greekgeek]

In that case I'd put one of those bass tubes that have the amplifier inside in the trunk and call it a day...

This actually seems like it could be a pretty elegant solution with a small footprint. Hmmm...

 

[Gunkk]

for sound quality, it's 2009 > 2012 > 2015. ive owned the 2009 and 2012 and driven the 2015.... and the drop in sound quality with each helf-generation is significant.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

This actually seems like it could be a pretty elegant solution with a small footprint. Hmmm...

And it's plug and play - so really easy installation.

for sound quality, it's 2009 > 2012 > 2015. ive owned the 2009 and 2012 and driven the 2015.... and the drop in sound quality with each helf-generation is significant.

That's a terrible shame. It sounds to me like Hyundai offered a great stereo system only to make an impact on the scene - and then got cheaper and cheaper hoping nobody would notice. That's ridiculous.

If they want to go cheap - then go cheap but leave "expensive" as an option. AT LEAST. At least let those who really want the best - have it. Instead, they want to thrift things out like a typical domestic brand (Cadillac/Lincoln) and hope nobody notices...

 

[ksoze]

for sound quality, it's 2009 > 2012 > 2015. ive owned the 2009 and 2012 and driven the 2015.... and the drop in sound quality with each helf-generation is significant.

Not to be a killjoy on the fun, but I am not convinced yet the systems were somehow economized with each successive version.

It is possible that with different models, the dynamics of the system has been retuned. That does not mean the parts are of less quality, but that the system response may have been shaped for the new cars interior and to reflect a different audio model being used. In particular, if the system was tuned for a flatter response (audiophile-wise ideal), some music may appear less pronounced since the system is expecting to deliver a more accurate version of the source content. This is more of a trend these days, which can be problematic on compressed music which is usually artificially boosted to compensate for the "missing" sound parts.

Odds are the systems in the newer generation car may not have cheaped out on parts, but was tuned differently which on some recordings may lessen the expectations based on systems which maybe handled frequencies differently.

Either that or you are getting older and your hearing is fading

 

[Sal Collaziano]

We should try to get to the bottom of this assumption that the stereo system has changed for the worse as a result of tuning or components. In any event, it might be a good idea to try and compare music in various forms - CD, MP3, Satellite, HD...

 

[greekgeek]

Amateur question: could it be that all the extra sound deadening material and solidity of the 2015 car is affecting the audio experience? Particularly for the bass?

 

[DRS]

We should try to get to the bottom of this assumption that the stereo system has changed for the worse as a result of tuning or components. In any event, it might be a good idea to try and compare music in various forms - CD, MP3, Satellite, HD...

Please review my lengthy post above... I did test all forms of input, side by side with my 2012 5.0 and my 2015 5.0 Ultimate.. The results were listed.. I have a spectrum analyzer from studio, which drug out from the studio and did some very basic testing. Results also listed. The 2015 system has been broken in.. It did get a slight bass volume increase in my view after 1200 miles or so.. Problem is, made it more boomy.

Without knowing for sure, I think you are on to something about changing components over time to lower cost.. Over the decades, Ford has done that with our multiple Expeditions, and Crown Vic LX or LX sports.. But then the pricing for the loaded 2004 LX sport was only a couple grand more than the Touring Edition we bought new in 1992 as teen youngsters.. The quality and feel of all controls, doors, door mechanics, body thickness, paint thickness and endurance, wheels, Aluminium intake verses plastic, radiator, JBL sound system, we're all noticeable better in the 1992 (12 year prior). The quality of the 2004 from a reliable standpoint is fine, the lower materials did not break, however, it has had to have lower cost items to keep the price almost the same over 12 years. The premium sound was mess compared to the original analog JBL in the 1992. In its 1992 JBL heyday, no surround or other digital gadgets aside, it sounded about 90% of the 2012 5.0 lexicon.. Not the same volume level, but very clean and deep tight base.

In the end, I think they digitally tuned the 2015, and used different sounding speakers to match what the mass listeners seem to want.. Gravelly low resolution MP3 urban sounds. Booming bass, synthetic musical instruments. If that was the goal, the U.S. audio engineers, for the most part, met their goals. And likely lowered cost too. I wish someone who engineered this would respond.. Looks like a few of us are curious.

 

[DRS]

Amateur question: could it be that all the extra sound deadening material and solidity of the 2015 car is affecting the audio experience? Particularly for the bass?

Might be... In the old Days, when my family elders made their own Klipschhorns (and other EV powered designs) from their kits, fabric made a difference. Also, how the boxes were tuned with the type of wood, and insulation inside.. As an example, booming Cerwin Vega speakers, their enclosures were designed to add the 100-400hz boom. On the graph, there would be spikes, even with "flat EQ" and crossovers. I believer you have a valid point. The doors, back shelf, behind the back seat, bracing, all could affect the tonal quality. And cause spiking in different frequency ranges. Also, the clarity of the speaker drivers for all seem to be not as clear.. Mid and high included.. Could be the digital crossovers, EQ, sound manipulation, or something based on the DSPs in the system.

If one wants to test the tonal quality, find some lossless audio that has instruments.. Piano is great test. So are sax, clarinet, French horn, Cornet, trombone, snare drum, timpani, bells, harp, xylophone, piccolo, tenor violin, cello... Solo, or together.. If you can find real record music, no tuning, that has one or more combination of these that will show a broad range of frequencies, and they are hard to duplicate clearly, you will get a better picture. But then, if you have not heard such instruments live, or on good quality (does not need to be esoteric) gear, your heart will tell you what you are experiencing. Certain female and male singers will also betray lousy tuning, and bad design.. Breathy females with range and dynamic range will crush a bad design system.. Also, Frank Sinatra or Harry Connick Jr will test a system. Of course Michael Blubley, IF one can find a good copy or recording.. Carrie Underwood in at least a CD is not a total disaster compared to today. Compared to the past, a mess.. Tuned to the hilt, compressed, and EQ out of natural norms. If that is all you have, use her..

If you can find the Battlestar Galactica (modern remake) pilot mini series sound track, some amazing modern mixing going on..some of the instruments are a mess, but many are left alone. Plus electronic instruments are decent. I took the DVD audio, and handbrake in some of the scenes. Have not seen a DVD audio of the soundtrack.

I listen to "Turn down for what", Titan "Heart and Soul", Evansence Fallen "Bring it to me", billy Thorpe "Children of the sun" also.. All auto tuned, many times compressed and EQ to death.. Also, just not so good recording equipment. So, I am not some classic only guy.. These also, as modern mash up as they are, sound better in a better designed system IMO.. They still sound better to me in the 2012.

Recommended albums. Get lossless versions of Sheffield direct to disc masters, certain Pink Flloyd versions which have the dynamic range of the vinyl and massive analog tape masters.. Those can be good tests of a sound system too..

 

[FastDEW1]

Sound is very subjective. Some here have suggested the system sounds better with Surround turned off. But to my ears, it is much better with Surround turned on.

I had a 2011 and now 2014. I cannot tell any difference. Maybe a little less bass in the 2014, but that might be because the Sub is new.