Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla please work with Neil Young to enable his streaming high resolution audio in cars

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Today I tested 24 bit, 192 kHz in my 2016 MS since I could not find where anyone had confirmed that functionality. I first tried a file from here: 2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH and it was indeed much better than anything else in my car. I confirmed that on my home system, 192 kHz was much better-sounding than 96 kHz. Maybe better than vinyl.

It seems that Neil Young has enabled streaming all of his music at 24/192 for free for now (till maybe June?). It would be great if I could play that in my model S. I was not able to. If I could have got it working, I would have gone on a road trip since I think that is the best way to hear NY.

Request to Tesla to enable streaming audio from: Neil Young Archives
Neil seems to be fighting the corporate corruption which results in the big fruit-named company and others removing the quality and emotion (bits) from music such as his. Since Tesla is also fighting the largest corporation(s) in history (EM and the other car makers, etc.) by providing the products that they have so far, it would be quite fitting for Tesla to enable us to hear Neil's catalog in our cars. Even more so since I believe that the use of NY music is on road trips.
I bought Rust Never Sleeps on 24/192 anyway, for my next road trip from here: Vinyl Records, SACDs, DVD Audio, Audiophile Equipment|Acoustic Sounds .
 
If you think 16/44.1 compression is bad, wait until you hear what 24/192 sounds like when they decide to compress it...

More seriously: the reason PonoMusic isn't catching on is that it's premised on bogus science. In particular, their claims about the benefits of increased sample rates violate the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. If someone really hears a difference between 44.1 and 192 kHz tracks, then the recordings haven't properly controlled for sample rate (i.e. there is another difference between them). Increasing bit depth is theoretically plausible to make a difference, but to the best of my knowledge it's never been empirically shown to matter in a final output.

Some references worth checking out if you're curious:
Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem - Wikipedia
Archimago's Musings: 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Audio Test - Part II: RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS
http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
 
Hehe.,. I once called out some folks that swore they could tell the difference between high bit depth and sample rates, as well as compression artifacts even with high bitrate advanced codecs. I took an uncompressed original piece, and down sampled it to lower depths, resampled them to lower rates, and compressed them with a couple if different codecs at several reasonably high bitrates.

I then rendered each of those resultant files back out to uncompressed PCM at the original rate/depth.

Sent them the original as well as all the processed files along with a key to each files specs in an encrypted document. They could listen to all the files on the same equipment of their choosing (many of them bragged about their high end systems).

They each had to reply with their assessment of which of processed files was what. Unbeknownst to them, I also included a couple of straight copies of the original.

The replies were all over the map. Most claimed to hear artifacts in the straight copies. Several of the downsampled/compressed files were thought to be identical to the original. The only guy who nailed the exact copies admitted he did a binary diff on te files (clever... I later determined a way to get around that).

When I sent everyone the decryption key and everyone realized their golden ears weren't as pristine as they had thought, or their "transparent" audio system wasn't up to the task, the attempts to call in to question the methodology started flying...

I chuckled and sent them THIS.