KVR Audio

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:20 am

I'm not really certain about the concern for soundcloud's quality level when most listeners could be considered deaf.

Remember these people are listening to these tracks on an ipad in a tile bathroom during a shower or similar. That's the most annoying thing in the world to see someone do by the way I hope you never need experience it.

That said, soundcloud provides the original upload file bit-for-bit for download if you enable downloads. Just upload flac compressed masters.

Obviously there may be concern regarding copyright, although if that's the case why the hell would you care about quality? If the quality were as good as the original master it could be stored (as transmitted, many browser plug-ins are available) or even directly recorded.

So in that respect soundcloud provides an excellent service as a free CDN for music and on top of that provides a very accessible streaming feature. That is why they're having a hard time making money. Usually a slut doesn't make for a very successful prostitute.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:27 am

Yep, deaf people complain about soundcloud.

More win........

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:36 am

Ultimately the important thing is to get your listens into the 100,000s range. If you're not there, I suspect "quality" of the streaming service is the very least of your problems.

Cross the 1000s boundary first before worrying about compression quality. Listeners don't care.

I'd think you'd want them to think about buying your album or tracks before they worry about free streaming quality. If they'd rather complain about the streaming quality I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but it means your music isn't worth shit.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:31 pm

kbaccki wrote:
jancivil wrote:As far as I have seen, it's generally inadvisable to provide a site with already seriously compressed files to smoosh some more. I don't know why Soundcloud sounds the way it sounds technically, I would need to care about using it a lot more to think about targeting a 'master' for it to do its damage to. And that ship has sailed.
From my perspective it's still potentially attractive from the standpoint of free and well-known, at least for a hobbyist like me. If I were promoting and selling content I wouldn't even deal with it.

What's unattractive is the sound quality, and also for me the whole UX thing. Especially their mobile offerings. Even as a hobbyist, for anything I actually want to be proud to show off to somebody I would not provide a SC link to.

On the sound quality... I'm just wondering if there's a magical mix/master elixir that effectively offsets whatever unholy hell SC unleashes on uploads... otherwise it's not worth the trouble, IMO. If so, the recipe can be made known, if somebody hasn't done so already (though I haven't seen mention of such a potion anywhere).

I've heard things which are literally incredible I will not have heard otherwise, and I mean strictly speaking.

I used to see comments such as 'How did you avoid the crap sound of Soundcloud', and one day it just wasn't possibly true. It kind of depressed me to work a mix that long and it's just something to ignore there if not delete. That particular track isn't that bad today with Youtube 128kbps or whatever they're doing. I can only extrapolate from this one experience, there's too much bass for their codec, low bass which lost too much definition and it lost tone.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:15 am

Sorry, I'm deaf, I can't hear you.

At reality: I listened to a track today (a good one) that sounded EXACTLY the same as anything else on soundcloud. For 3 seconds I thought about mentioning it, to kick into reality realizing it's soundcloud and that EVERYTHING sounds that way.

What a bummer for people who take the time to correct anomalies and issues. For shame.

Vortifex · Post by **Vortifex** » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:51 pm

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:35 am

What would motivate Facebook to create their own html5/js browser to run 3rd party scripts in their app? That doesn't make any sense.

It would make more sense to link to the track address and have that open in a proper browser app.

Think about what you're saying. It's no different than expecting to load up photoshop, load "facebook.com.jpg" and have it load, log in and start up a voice/video chat. That's plainly insane.

Or a better one would be expecting to put your card/pin into an atm, have it serve you popcorn and soda, pop up a theatre seat and start playing the latest films.

SoundCloud replacements