Soundcloud could be forced to close after massive losses...

[cron]

Isn't soundcloud higher quality than YouTube? Soundcloud also gives you ORIGINAL downloads (i.e. download original file) which YouTube doesn't have.


Also YouTube has also stopped integrating with facebook. Now all their links need to visit the website to be able to play.

I've done my homework after cron's reply to me. Youtube supposedly can use 155-165 kbps Opus. Soundcloud converts to 128Kbps mp3, which I also verified when I download my tracks. Youtube may not be designed for original downloads, but I'll be fine just putting 3rd party links in the description.

Oh wow, they've increased the quality since I last checked then! Didn't know they'd moved to Opus. Last I looked they'd gone down to 128 AAC across all video sizes (720p+ used to offer 192 AAC). Good news!

[seismic1]

After I had been on Hearthis for about 7 months I started receiving mails "encouraging" me to take up a paid account. I think it is 29 Euros per year for the basic model. After all, they still have to pay the bills. It's also worth reading the Ts & Cs carefully too. I'm cool with them, but ymmv.

Is there something in the T&Cs that stood out particularly.

I thought the section covering the embedding of their widgets on websites/blogs/social networks was quite interesting. It appears to be quite different to SoundCloud's approach.

[jancivil]

Isn't soundcloud higher quality than YouTube? Soundcloud also gives you ORIGINAL downloads (i.e. download original file) which YouTube doesn't have.


Also YouTube has also stopped integrating with facebook. Now all their links need to visit the website to be able to play.

YT audio used to have a worse option than the SC 128kbps mp3 but not for years. I replace the audio stream via Cubase w. a 24-bit 44.1 .wav; I download my video w. '4K Video Downloader' and Import that stream into Cubase and it's the 24-bit 44.1 .wav. I don't know what YT does to that anymore but it sounds much better than SC, no question. .

[Compyfox]

Isn't soundcloud higher quality than YouTube? Soundcloud also gives you ORIGINAL downloads (i.e. download original file) which YouTube doesn't have.


Also YouTube has also stopped integrating with facebook. Now all their links need to visit the website to be able to play.

I've done my homework after cron's reply to me. Youtube supposedly can use 155-165 kbps Opus. Soundcloud converts to 128Kbps mp3, which I also verified when I download my tracks. Youtube may not be designed for original downloads, but I'll be fine just putting 3rd party links in the description.

Oh wow, they've increased the quality since I last checked then! Didn't know they'd moved to Opus. Last I looked they'd gone down to 128 AAC across all video sizes (720p+ used to offer 192 AAC). Good news!

Not wrong, and not quite right either.

It depends on the web browser you use, and the source file being uploaded. Youtube (according to their specs) does offer the so called VP9 video and OPUS audio (an evolution off OGG) stream, but to my understanding only if two conditions apply:

a) you use a browser that can interpret VP9 and OPUS obviously anything that can run HTML5, but even then it's a 50/50 chance - I use Firefox with a "force HTML5 for Youtube" plugin and I still get H264 vids)
b) the material wasn't uploaded in H26x and AAC already

Else, the fallback seems to be H.264 and AAC. Up to 192kbit btw - even though the system is capable of 256kbit/s (AAC!) - it is throttled to offer a better performance overall (still I see a lot of error screens on 16MBit lately). Actually, according to official Youtube upload guidelines, you can(!) upload up to 8k HD with 96kHz audio in 5.1 surround. But it's still seems to be down-sampled to 44kHz however.

Additional to that, the official OPUS specs are limited to 48kHz (even inferior than FLAC, which can go up until 96kHz but 24bit only)



Here are two fairly recent examples of what YT has to offer stream wise

YT-VP9-vs-H264.png

YT-8k-vid--VP9-vs-H264.png

Take note of the available audio codecs.

So my assumption is - depending on "how" it was uploaded, the higher the bitrate for the audio stream. There are no winners or losers IMO. It's only that Google wants to push it's own format or rather the the WebM specs for streaming (VP9 for video, OPUS for audio - due to being "Open Source"), while the industry wants to keep h26x and xyz audio (can be AAC, DTS, AC3) for physical mediums/web streams/DLC and mass distribution.


And the most used format is still MP3 - after that, everything else

Even the Fraunhofer HD-AAC format is not as widespread yet - even though AAC is common place - and these specs (HD-AAC) have been out for a couple of years at this point (lossless AAC, with a fallback system to lossy AAC, it it can be played ANYWHERE - in the press since 2010 bar minimum).


Then again - do we really care which CODEC ultimately performs best if the material is still pressed to sh*t anyway and the material is mass consumed (as in >90% of the time) on frequency over-emphasized earbuds? Do suitable hardware players for VP9/OPUS exist already and/or are they widespread enough compared to MP3 and AAC that are available at our fingertips (Smartphones, iPods, modern mobile gaming devices/tablets, SmartTV engines, etc)?

A valid questions.


Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Q ... nd_formats
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28a ... mple_rates (also confirmed on the official CODEC page)


PS:
Doesn't SoundCloud offer higher quality MP3's and WAV download as well? I'm 100% positive for WAV (participants of the Mix Challenge use that feature), and I seem to recall that I downloaded higher bitrate MP3s from SoundCloud previously...

[Gonga]

Unless SC changed that policy, yes. If you upload a wav, SC converts to 128kbps mp3 for streaming, but when you download you get the original wav. What I used to do was upload 320kbps mp3, that way people get a nice high bitrate mp3 to download directly to their player.

As always, some tunes sound great as 128 bit and some don't. It's a shame they never updated.

[chaosWyrM]

Also YouTube has also stopped integrating with facebook. Now all their links need to visit the website to be able to play.

that is incorrect.

Err... Last time I tried no matter what it wouldn't embed. Just shows the YouTube logo which takes you to YouTube site.

well...i dont know what to tell you. youtube vids work just fine within facebook. maybe you have a browser cache problem or something?

[keyman_sam]

Shit I was using Spartan in Windows 10 maybe that's why. I'll try chrome next time.

[NystagmusE]

my advice to soundcloud: dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

what i found more interesting was the linked article at the bottom of that http://www.factmag.com/2015/08/14/what- ... oundcloud/.

seems to me soundclouds biggest problem has been one of identity. they wanted to become a listening destination...but they arent one. the main use of soundcloud was for small artists to have a platform to share their work, not as a place to go to listen to music. sure...you could do that...and they even made that easy...but the main function was to make sharing easy...not listening.

there really shouldnt even be music from sony artists (or other major labels) on soundcloud in the first place. soundclouds decision to scramble and try to find ways to placate large labels and to attract listeners instead of enhancing tools for small artists will be their downfall.

i agree with you 200% on every point! they lost their identity is right. they forgot their roots.

[fluffy_little_something]

I won't miss it, never liked it, there is something cheap and flimsy about it. Their stupid inline player is too loud and doesn't even have a volume control.

And their strategy failure doesn't surprise me at all, it is a German company, after all

[Axis1~SL61]

chaosWyrM wrote:
"there really shouldnt even be music from sony artists (or other major labels) on soundcloud in the first place. soundclouds decision to scramble and try to find ways to placate large labels and to attract listeners instead of enhancing tools for small artists will be their downfall."

That's what happens (and has happened again & again & again...) when they try to use amateur/independent musicians as fans to established acts in some sort of pyramid scheme! -- I'M A POOR UNSIGNED MUSICIAN, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME NOR THE MONEY (nor even the slightest interest) TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL ACTS LIKE MADONNA, LADY GAGAga or JUSTIN BIEBER, etc on SoundCloud or Anywhere else!!! I only have time for my own music and money to buy my instruments!!!
(When will they learn this? )

[...]And their strategy failure doesn't surprise me at all, it is a German company, after all

by the way, I think HearThis.at is German too -- but I still hope they don't go the same way as SC in the future...

[cron]

Not wrong, and not quite right either...

Excellent work Compyfox. Many thanks for taking the time to drill down further.

[Zombie Queen]

That's what happens (and has happened again & again & again...) when they try to use amateur/independent musicians as fans to established acts in some sort of pyramid scheme!

Were there ever fans on Soundcloud? As I remember it, there were just amateur/independent musicians taking time to listen to each other, as a form of trade-in audience. The drive behind it was the promise of having an audience. So, established acts need to reach out for creative accounting now?

[ghettosynth]

That's what happens (and has happened again & again & again...) when they try to use amateur/independent musicians as fans to established acts in some sort of pyramid scheme!

Were there ever fans on Soundcloud? As I remember it, there were just amateur/independent musicians taking time to listen to each other, as a form of trade-in audience. The drive behind it was the promise of having an audience. So, established acts need to reach out for creative accounting now?

Yes, I thought that was kind of his point, that they attract independents and then as the service grows they try to leverage that audience in service to larger acts. It's really just exploitation though, they were never there to listen to gaga in the first place.

The value of such a service to me is exactly what I'm experiencing right now as I type this. I just got my first follower on hearthis.at and I'm listening to his work, which is really weird, and really cool. I find that inspiring, I have time for that.

I'd rather have 10 potential friends who might be collaborators, or not, than have 100 or even 10,000 fans. As a completely amateur musician, the hobby isn't about selling records. For this kind of music, I don't think that it ever could be without a lot of something else to back it up, e.g., a lot of skill, bona-fides, luck, money, hotness. It's just about enjoying the creation and connecting with others who do the same.

[Axis1~SL61]

Were there ever fans on Soundcloud? As I remember it, there were just amateur/independent musicians taking time to listen to each other, as a form of trade-in audience. The drive behind it was the promise of having an audience. So, established acts need to reach out for creative accounting now?

Exactly!...
What it seems is that (SC, mp3.com, mySpace and many others in the past), once they see thousands, maybe millions of unsigned musos' accounts on their site, they begin to think "wow, what if they could all be USED as FANS to be somehow "sold" to the majors in the industry"... and there they go!... and out I go (and many others I hope) because it's just irritating because it's such an obvious primary trick, denoting just a basic and predictable greedy strategy!... moreover I just can't be bothered, I dedicate at least 75% of my music time to the making of my own music and the remaining 25% I will listen to whatever other unsigned musicians like me are doing, if possible, or if I want to listen to the established/successful/famous bands I like I just go to my list of "Favourites" on my Youtube account...
And I guess most of the other unsigned musos like me do exactly the same!

[Zombie Queen]

I'd rather have 10 potential friends who might be collaborators, or not, than have 100 or even 10,000 fans.

Good point.

once they see thousands, maybe millions of unsigned musos' accounts on their site, they begin to think "wow, what if they could all be USED as FANS to be somehow "sold" to the majors in the industry"...

I don't think this is the main reason for the inevitable fall of myspace/sc-like. The problem is that the crowd attracts vultures. Guys who want to rip you off, sell you fans or listens, show you naked pictures (for whatever reason), or just guys (somehow it's always guys), who will slap "dude, cool" comment on a thousand tracks in hope to achieve world wide fame. Sites like that should really have a selection system of some kind, or garbage will just flow in. While Soundcloud, with all new improvements, is doing what they can to attract more and more of such audience.