I'm uploading well-mixed tracks onto their site and it's either limiting or compressing them. If they can't put their money to making their site better, then I guess besides Youtube, the audio portal has become one of my mains.
i can't agree more on the matter. It has never been a quality uploading site UNLESS you pay for it. another cashgrabbingbackstabbing site to either stay away from or just roll with what it has to offer.
Beware that whenever the sun rays touch my skin i will pop like a flower and show my true colors.
Oh and you might see me play rocket league lol
At 2/10/17 12:09 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote: I'm uploading well-mixed tracks onto their site and it's either limiting or compressing them. If they can't put their money to making their site better, then I guess besides Youtube, the audio portal has become one of my mains.
They do convert everything to 128kbps do you mean this or something ontop of it ? Agreed that it's a pain when you spend ages mixing and then upload it and the high end is messed up :(
Soundcloud's streaming quality has always been pretty low. What do your peaks look like? Soundcloud isn't very good at handling levels close to 0dB. If a song peaks at -0.1dB for example chances are it's going to go over once Soundcloud converts it.
At 2/10/17 03:32 PM, Burntfires22 wrote: I actually think that Soundcloud is pretty much f**ked financially, and if I remember correctly I think Spotify was gonna buy it out.
Besides, best use for Soundclown is for uploading shitty Undertale mashups, that's general knowledge at this stage lads
Oh, Sweet Jesus. Please, Spotify. Just buy them out already.
welcome to corporation world. where they spend their thinking on how to make the most profit out of the least spending.
edit. aint capitalism great?
At 2/11/17 11:21 AM, SnowTeddy wrote: welcome to corporation world. where they spend their thinking on how to make the most profit out of the least spending.
edit. aint capitalism great?
Hey, whatever. They don't want my business, that's fine with me.
Hmm...Idk I'm Kinda in between I mostly use Soundclown to uploaa stuff that isnt fully done n junk. I only Upload in the Audio Portal if i think it's finally good n ready to be on here. Ng artists are a totally diff caliber then the ones on soundcloud and i wana feel like i can vibe just the same with the ppl on here.
At 2/11/17 12:58 PM, Burntfires22 wrote: Unless you don't intend on buying Soundcloud Pro or something then they probably don't.
That's the problem. I was buying it actually.
At 2/10/17 11:05 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:At 2/10/17 03:32 PM, Burntfires22 wrote: I actually think that Soundcloud is pretty much f**ked financially, and if I remember correctly I think Spotify was gonna buy it out.Oh, Sweet Jesus. Please, Spotify. Just buy them out already.
Besides, best use for Soundclown is for uploading shitty Undertale mashups, that's general knowledge at this stage lads
But from what I heard, Spotify has not made a profit since its launch...
Oh dear, unless Spotify is too big to fail and someone buys it out, both of them are fucked.
At 2/12/17 04:50 AM, Troisnyx wrote: Oh dear, unless Spotify is too big to fail and someone buys it out, both of them are fucked.
I don't really care about Soundcloud, but I hope Spotify can survive.
At 2/12/17 10:09 AM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:At 2/12/17 04:50 AM, Troisnyx wrote: Oh dear, unless Spotify is too big to fail and someone buys it out, both of them are fucked.I don't really care about Soundcloud, but I hope Spotify can survive.
as long as less people pull out from spotify.
Same here, i don't like soundcloud with their 2 hours limit ! :c
At 2/12/17 11:36 AM, Zorrio wrote: Same here, i don't like soundcloud with their 2 hours limit ! :c
ran out 2 hours limit cos my tracks all too damn long. had to delete stuff to upload new tracks.
I pretty much hopped on Newgrounds after SC removed their groups. Still have some songs on there, but that's about it.
I barely use Soundcloud due to getting barely any listeners on there and it being the problem of compression down to 128kbps music as many others have said. Unless you have a previous following already there is no point. The system works in a way where you have to blindly follow as many people as possible to get exposed in the "related tracks" list.
At 2/10/17 02:37 PM, D-Chain wrote: i can't agree more on the matter. It has never been a quality uploading site UNLESS you pay for it. another cashgrabbingbackstabbing site to either stay away from or just roll with what it has to offer.
I've tried Pro and haven't noticed any stream quality difference.
on top of the compression, SC is about useless to up and coming artists because of the tremendously low views unknown artists get. Ultramartyr isn't very well known on either NG or SC, but i get 300+ more views in a week on NG than on SC. SC's view counts on all our tracks we've ever uploaded there are in the single digits, and they also don't allow you to overwrite existing files on their servers, you have to delete the project and re upload it under a different name. worthless
Hm. Intresting. I should check how it changes the track. Have only 1 track there. And I did not felt it was compressed, but became lower mp3 quality.
At 2/13/17 01:14 PM, Grandvision wrote: The system works in a way where you have to blindly follow as many people as possible to get exposed in the "related tracks" list.
The bots alone piss me off to no end.
lel
At 2/14/17 06:18 PM, Sequenced wrote: you just noticed this ?
I honestly thought the bad mixes were my fault. They kinda were, but Soundcloud made them thrice as bad.
At 2/14/17 08:54 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:At 2/14/17 06:18 PM, Sequenced wrote: you just noticed this ?I honestly thought the bad mixes were my fault. They kinda were, but Soundcloud made them thrice as bad.
not to jab at fun, do you know that your ears don't recognize the difference between 192Kbps and
320Kbps?
maybe it was the mix.
At 2/14/17 10:04 PM, SnowTeddy wrote:At 2/14/17 08:54 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:not to jab at fun, do you know that your ears don't recognize the difference between 192Kbps andAt 2/14/17 06:18 PM, Sequenced wrote: you just noticed this ?I honestly thought the bad mixes were my fault. They kinda were, but Soundcloud made them thrice as bad.
320Kbps?
maybe it was the mix.
Before it was my bad mixes. But now it's just kinda Soundcloud's fault.
%Temp%
It makes absolutely no sense to be at 128kbps these days, there's no logic in it.
Phones have 4G and Wifi is very fast. Desktop is still the platform of choice on Soundcloud anyway. Countries with high Soundcloud usage such as American, UK, Canada, Australia, Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc all have high speed internet. Therefore there is no point restricting the speed to an audience which isnt interested in Soundcloud.
What's even odder is that if you have downloads on, then when someone downloads the track, they download the high quality original. So it doesn't save storage space either. It actually wastes space to have a converted 128kpbs for streaming and the original.
The 2 hour limit is pathetic too, and £10 a month is just plain ridiculous. If google drive can give 15Gb free, box can give you 10Gb etc there is no need for a limit. 120 minutes at 128Kbps, the storage space is 115.2Mb. (128Kbps = 960Kb per minute / 57.6Mb per hour). An argument for higher quality also is that it does your users a greater service, and your listeners. This encourages usage of SoundCloud.
I dont use SC often, I actually tend to use it as a dump ground because the storage is so limited. The integration into social media is great, the commenting system is nice. I think the discovery system is shit and people cant be found on it. (Newgrounds has it's own issues depending on votes, rather than a like/comment system which has proven to help bring the best to the front, but that's a conversation for another day).
What other options are there do you guys use? Other than Bandcamp, SC, etc?
At 2/15/17 07:04 AM, EvilRaccoon wrote: What other options are there do you guys use? Other than Bandcamp, SC, etc?
I really enjoy Instaudio for its high quality. If a comment system was added to that, it'd be boss. So far my favorite site in terms of feedback is either Youtube or NG. I like finding out that my track made somebody find joy or helped them cope.
This whole thread is the reason I don't use SoundCloud. Not only do you get shit quality hosting there, but the service is shitty, and they charge you for everything. At least Google gives you free analytics and offers you a chance at revenue, and NG offers unlimited downloads and a better service overall.
Your source for monthly music producer freebies here // Take My Cymbals // ALL my big sample projects, FREE
I do professional audio critique & commissions. Catch me on YT and X! If you got music, I'll playlist you!
you know, Shitcloud wasn't too bad comparing to Myspace.
NG is still the best.
I really don't think SC sounds that bad. I can notice a difference, certainly, and I'm aware that SC downsamples to 128kbps, but I really don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be -- certainly shouldn't be making a well-mixed track sound considerably worse -- and I'm almost positive an average listener wouldn't be able to discern the difference (assuming they're listening on consumer-grade equipment).
Out of curiosity, I just ripped one of my tracks from SC (one of the few where I notice a more distinct difference between the original upload) and compared it to the original. Feel free to give it a listen here. I didn't run through the whole track, but rather, began with the max peak and had roughly 30 seconds of the original upload play before moving to the SC rip. While it was further converted by my DAW and therefore isn't a 100% "raw" comparison, I think it's relevant because it's largely the difference in frequencies that's responsible for the difference in sound. I think there's a bit of additional clarity lost in the 128kbps SC mp3, but nothing drastic, by any means; I just notice that there's less 'air' in the SC version, since the original goes a bit beyond 20khz. By extension, the SC mix also sounds a bit quieter, and that's reflected in the true peak levels, too (original = -0.5, sc = -0.7).
NG does sound better, but SC is kind of the de facto standard for uploading/sharing content, so I wouldn't avoid using it based on that alone.
Can anyone else link to mixes where they feel like they noticed a much more dramatic difference in quality between their original renders and the SC uploads? Honestly, I feel like a lot of these perceived differences are either just that sense of missing something in the high end or just a mental thing. Sure, there's some clarity/detail loss with a 128kbps mp3, but if the mix is decent enough it should still sound good enough for most people.
