News
NIO ET7 audio system reveals how important software will be in future vehicles [Editorial]
NIO went the extra mile—and then some—when it conceptualized the audio system for the ET7. The NIO ET7 has 23 speakers powered by Swedish digital audio pioneer Dirac’s Opteo Professional audio software and Dolby Atmos technology.
NIO and Dirac’s work on the ET7’s audio system reveals the changing design of the car’s cabin and the role software plays in its redesign.
The NIO ET7’s Sound
Every automaker has a specific sound they would like their passengers to enjoy in their vehicles. NIO also has a particular sound target, and for the ET7, the Chinese automaker wanted it to come through crystal clear.
NIO worked closely with Dirac to create its sound. The NIO ET7’s official online page states that the four-seater car has 23 speakers, four overhead speakers, and a subwoofer. It also has a 20-channel amplifier and comes standard with Dolby Atmos Technology.
NIO didn’t just add lots of speakers to the ET7, though. The China-based automaker together with Dirac were meticulous and intentional with the ET7’s audio system.
Redefining the Cabin
Audio experts must consider the environment the sound will be played in, making it challenging to work with vehicles. Lars Carlsson, the Head of Business Development Automotive Audio and Vice President at Dirac, told Teslarati that audio experts have to consider many things when creating the perfect sound inside a vehicle. They have to consider the number and position of the speakers and the number of seats in the vehicle. Audio experts must also consider how sound reflects on the cabin’s different surfaces and windows.
Each speaker output in the NIO ET7 was measured with 16 microphones, positioned in each seat for a total of 64 measurement positions in the cabin. The measured data gave Dirac a good overview of the acoustic performance of the car’s cabin and creates the base for Dirac’s patented algorithms to optimize the sound.
“We base everything on measurements and data. Our process really saves audio engineers a lot of time. They can tune on their computer instead of spending weeks in the car,” Carlsson said.
After measuring the cabin, Dirac used algorithms to “derive the optimum solution” for its sound field control technology. With sound field control, Dirac created “super speakers” for the ET7. Typically, there are three speakers in a car door: low frequency, mid-range frequency, and a tweeter for the high frequency. Dirac uses sound field control to digitally align the speakers, making them collaborate to realize one full, quality sound.
“In addition our algorithm lets the speakers in the cabin and the subwoofer collaborate to create an even sound field in the car, which means we can actually create an equal audio experience in every seat. You get the voice right in front of you and a good imaging and a very even bass distribution and tight bass,” explained Carlsson.
Software’s Critical Role in Future Vehicles
Software is playing an increasingly important role in the auto industry as automotive OEMs and startups reconceptualize the idea of the vehicle. Now, automakers are reimagining the use of the car cabin as more vehicles integrate autonomous software.
Software lies at the center of redesigning the cabin space for passenger activities. Many automakers have started investing in software for their vehicles. For instance, Volkswagen invested €2 billion in a joint venture with China-based Horizon Robotics. And Stellantis launched a software development center in India recently.
Audio, in particular, is beginning to play a more significant role in the cabin as automakers introduce more types of media for passengers to enjoy while on the road. Electric cars coming out on the market have fun new features now, like karaoke, videos, games, and more which rely heavily on audio systems. However, it is autonomy that drives the cabin’s redesign.
“We have an enormous interest for our solutions because audio is getting more and more important in the car. This is true for electric cars because it’s a quieter environment but also when looking into autonomous cars, where maybe you’ll be working in your car, you’ll be listening to music, you’ll be watching videos, you’ll have maybe rotating seats,” said Carlsson.
“There’s a lot of challenges also coming ahead, but I would say that Dirac is very well equipped for future challenges because software for anything in the cars is key,” he added.
The Teslarati team would appreciate hearing from you. If you have any tips, contact me at maria@teslarati.com or via Twitter @Writer_01001101.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
