x
audiokid 18 February 2016

http://www.factmag.com/2016/02/11/soundcloud-financial-report-44m-losses/

Comments

Aaron Mon, 02/22/2016 - 07:11

Chris Stark, post: 436610, member: 49751 wrote: Hm, I've never heard any ads on Soundcloud, but YouTube hits me in the face with one every time I turn around.

Adblock Plus seems to work great https://adblockplus.org/

Whether or not Soundcloud stays afloat, can anyone recommend other music-specific platforms to upload and share music. I'm also working on a new website that will be a combination photo, video, and audio, and trying to find a way to embed audio tracks with a sort of mini-media player for each, directly to the site. Any recommendations for that too?

DonnyThompson Mon, 02/22/2016 - 23:57

Sean G, post: 436639, member: 49362 wrote: I think SC has bigger issues to sort out first if the article above is anything to go by

At the bottom of that article is a link to another article, [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.factmag…"]"Five Reasons Why SC Might Be Doomed"[/]="http://www.factmag…"]"Five Reasons Why SC Might Be Doomed"[/]...

One of the reasons mentioned, was that "SC users are moving over to similar sites in droves"; and especially this one: that "Bedroom producers are now using other sites" ...
And I found it interesting that they didn't mention one of the big reasons as to why that may be happening; and that is that SC's audio quality leaves a lot to be desired.

Maybe not to the "typical" listener, who is happy with a 128kb file, and can't hear the difference between that and a .wav, but to someone who has a more refined sense of listening , SC's lossy nature is pretty evident.

And, if it's evident to those people, then it's glaringly apparent to guys like us ( I've experienced lossy artifacts with SC uploads more times than I could count), and it does me very little good as a user to be able to swap "rushes" ( test mixes or proofs) with collaborators or clients. I can't afford to have those people receiving mixes - test/proof or not - with those kinds of phasey/swirly artifacts encoded within the file... and if a thousand guys like me feel the same way ... or 5 thousand, or 10 thousand... then even if SC is relying on ads or click-throughs to make money, then guys like us aren't going to see those ads, because we won't be using their product/service to see them in the first place...

I gave them the benefit of the doubt at first; for awhile I thought maybe it was my ISP's connection that might be causing the issues, but I've talked to enough people now, from all over the place, to know that this isn't the problem. I've used other audio file upload/streaming services since, and SC is the only one that consistently delivers poor sonics.

I even contacted SC directly about this about a year ago, and in their return email to me, they even admitted as such that lossy artifacts was a problem, and a concern - yet they offered no hint of intention that they planned on resolving the issue.

I've been using Dropbox pretty much exclusively now, where I can also choose which files/resolutions I'd like to upload; and for simple rushes, I'll usually just attach a higher res MP3 to a regular email.

I just can't trust SC to deliver what I need, and that's unfortunate, because the premise of the site was one of good intention.

-d.

Aaron Fri, 02/26/2016 - 14:06

Sean G, post: 436638, member: 49362 wrote: Aaron

https://bandcamp.com/

https://www.spotify.com/

Thanks Sean, I'm going to look into that.

Regarding SoundCloud, I've used it as sort of a 'portfolio' of recordings since I'm just starting out, versus as a method for delivering files. I haven't started to get paid yet because of that lack of experience so if I record different sounding musicians with different instruments, I'll add it to SC and direct new musicians I want to record, or school music departments for example, to that site and hopefully turn them from new musicians I'm recording to new clients who are paying me.

x

User login