Soundcloud to limit uploads to 15 tracks on free.

jwmmakerofmusic

I got an email from Soundcloud that free users will be able to upload, store, and download their original HD lossless files (which was limited to Pro Unlimited users only). Free users were able to upload as many tracks that could fit into a 3-hour period.

Now Soundcloud will be limiting free users to 3 hours OR 15 tracks max because of "making uploading, storing, and downloading lossless tracks free for all". Existing uploads are not affected, but I won't be able to upload any fresh tracks to Soundcloud without subscribing to one of their tiers.

Now to some people who use Soundcloud on a daily basis, a subscription is worth having. That's fine. But to people like me who use Soundcloud on occasion, this is not fine, at least to me it isn't. Consider me irritated.

SpookyZoo

I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I've been a casual user for numerous years, and I've always been surprised at what I can get for free from their service.

jwmmakerofmusic

@SpookyZoo said:
I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I didn't know they were losing revenue every year. It's still irritating, but I guess it isn't all bad?

gregsmith

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@SpookyZoo said:
I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I didn't know they were losing revenue every year. It's still irritating, but I guess it isn't all bad?

There will no doubt be an alternative soon

kinkujin

I've only been a soundcloud user for about a month or so. But, I'm finding it really great - so easy to upload from our beloved AudioShare. Guess I'll be spending. money money money

jwmmakerofmusic

@gregsmith said:

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@SpookyZoo said:
I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I didn't know they were losing revenue every year. It's still irritating, but I guess it isn't all bad?

There will no doubt be an alternative soon

I think we still have Bandcamp. Not sure how good of an alternative that is though. 🤔 As @kinkujin said, Soundcloud is easier to upload from. Although with full desktop browsing in iPadOS's Safari on the iPad, Bandcamp should be a breeze to use.

Tarekith

I'm just happy we can finally do lossless and no more of that awful 128kbps MP3 conversion they were using.

SpookyZoo

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@gregsmith said:

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@SpookyZoo said:
I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I didn't know they were losing revenue every year. It's still irritating, but I guess it isn't all bad?

There will no doubt be an alternative soon

I think we still have Bandcamp. Not sure how good of an alternative that is though. 🤔 As @kinkujin said, Soundcloud is easier to upload from. Although with full desktop browsing in iPadOS's Safari on the iPad, Bandcamp should be a breeze to use.

I'd definitely be happy to see Bandcamp up their game and take some of Soundcloud's market share. Love the Bandcamp platform, but their progress isn't fast. Still no iPad app after 6 years despite numerous app store review requests from users.

Perhaps they're happy with where they are.

jwmmakerofmusic

@SpookyZoo said:

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@gregsmith said:

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@SpookyZoo said:
I'm surprised its taken them so long to introduce something like this. They're a business, and they've been losing money every year.

I didn't know they were losing revenue every year. It's still irritating, but I guess it isn't all bad?

There will no doubt be an alternative soon

I think we still have Bandcamp. Not sure how good of an alternative that is though. 🤔 As @kinkujin said, Soundcloud is easier to upload from. Although with full desktop browsing in iPadOS's Safari on the iPad, Bandcamp should be a breeze to use.

I'd definitely be happy to see Bandcamp up their game and take some of Soundcloud's market share. Love the Bandcamp platform, but their progress isn't fast. Still no iPad app after 6 years despite numerous app store review requests from users.

Perhaps they're happy with where they are.

I think they are. Like I said though, now that Safari is the full desktop version in iPadOS, I don't think Bandcamp will release an app.

To be honest, I can't stand the Soundcloud app lol. I don't think I'm able to upload with it (can only upload either through Safari itself or any app with Soundcloud export such as AudioShare).

SpookyZoo

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

To be honest, I can't stand the Soundcloud app lol. I don't think I'm able to upload with it (can only upload either through Safari itself or any app with Soundcloud export such as AudioShare).

Soundcloud killed all the useful features of its app several (4+?) years ago. I ended my short run of paid subscription at that point. Writing was on the wall then that SC were pretty much shooting in the dark. Didn’t seem to know who their customers were or the feature set they should have been expanding and profiting on.

Now and again I open the app by accident and remember how bad it became.

Good point on the iPadOS Safari browser.

walkie

It is weird to me that SoundCloud charges both creators and consumers. Creators pay money to upload content that SoundCloud then makes ad revenue off of unless consumers pay to avoid those ads. If their main business model is ad revenue (or paying to avoid ads), and they also make money off of song/album sales, then it seems like they'd want to make uploading content free to maximize the number of creators using their platform.

JeffChasteen

I received that notice and it still remains unclear.
Is it:
15 tracks?
or 3 hours?
With those being the only two options?
Can one have 30 tracks of 6 minute lengths?
Or 3 tracks of 60 minute lengths?
Or 180 tracks of I minute songs?

I am generally fairly bright, but this new stipulation is confusing.

jwmmakerofmusic

@JeffChasteen said:
I received that notice and it still remains unclear.
Is it:
15 tracks?
or 3 hours?
With those being the only two options?
Can one have 30 tracks of 6 minute lengths?
Or 3 tracks of 60 minute lengths?
Or 180 tracks of I minute songs?

I am generally fairly bright, but this new stipulation is confusing.

Basically, it's like this. You can have up to 15 tracks so long as they remain under three hours (such as 15 Pop/EDM tracks). OR, you can have up to three hours of tracks so long as you don't have more than 15 (so if you have 3 pieces of Ambient at an hour each, you can't upload more than that).

espiegel123

@walkie said:
It is weird to me that SoundCloud charges both creators and consumers. Creators pay money to upload content that SoundCloud then makes ad revenue off of unless consumers pay to avoid those ads. If their main business model is ad revenue (or paying to avoid ads), and they also make money off of song/album sales, then it seems like they'd want to make uploading content free to maximize the number of creators using their platform.

They don't make enough money from ad revenue or sales to be profitable -- hence the structure. They keep on trying to figure out ways to make money. So, it isn't strange that they periodically try something different since nothing that they have tried has been profitable. It is a tough business. Most SoundCloud creators aren't investing much in their own publicity. So, it may be that charging a small fee helps limit the amount of resources needed to store and serve the data to people that are making an effort to make money (as opposed to people uploading tunes and hoping for the best).

JeffChasteen

@jwmmakerofmusic said:

@JeffChasteen said:
I received that notice and it still remains unclear.
Is it:
15 tracks?
or 3 hours?
With those being the only two options?
Can one have 30 tracks of 6 minute lengths?
Or 3 tracks of 60 minute lengths?
Or 180 tracks of I minute songs?

I am generally fairly bright, but this new stipulation is confusing.

Basically, it's like this. You can have up to 15 tracks so long as they remain under three hours (such as 15 Pop/EDM tracks). OR, you can have up to three hours of tracks so long as you don't have more than 15 (so if you have 3 pieces of Ambient at an hour each, you can't upload more than that).

Thanks.
That is much clearer than the garbled announcement I received from SC

zpxlng

@jwmmakerofmusic said:
Basically, it's like this. You can have up to 15 tracks so long as they remain under three hours (such as 15 Pop/EDM tracks). OR, you can have up to three hours of tracks so long as you don't have more than 15 (so if you have 3 pieces of Ambient at an hour each, you can't upload more than that).

Is this it for sure? Because thanks for the clarity.

But also: how fucked!

Like I know they need to make money, but for me personally, this will be the end of using soundcloud. (I don't expect them to miss me personally, but there must be many more of me out there.)

And how are they gonna attract new users? For established, successful users it might be worth paying for the service, but how many new users are likely to reach that level with a 15-track limit?

Just wondering how they imagine this playing out; what their business plan is. Or if they have one? Like maybe they're just throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks, at this point.

Perhaps they're confident that the wannabe hip-hop producer/rapper demographic has been convinced that getting big on soundcloud, and only soundcloud, is necessary for success...?

I don't know what you're doing, soundcloud, but sincerely, good luck.

espiegel123

@zpxlng said:

@jwmmakerofmusic said:
Basically, it's like this. You can have up to 15 tracks so long as they remain under three hours (such as 15 Pop/EDM tracks). OR, you can have up to three hours of tracks so long as you don't have more than 15 (so if you have 3 pieces of Ambient at an hour each, you can't upload more than that).

Is this it for sure? Because thanks for the clarity.

But also: how fucked!

Like I know they need to make money, but for me personally, this will be the end of using soundcloud. (I don't expect them to miss me personally, but there must be many more of me out there.)

And how are they gonna attract new users? For established, successful users it might be worth paying for the service, but how many new users are likely to reach that level with a 15-track limit?

Just wondering how they imagine this playing out; what their business plan is. Or if they have one? Like maybe they're just throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks, at this point.

Perhaps they're confident that the wannabe hip-hop producer/rapper demographic has been convinced that getting big on soundcloud, and only soundcloud, is necessary for success...?

I don't know what you're doing, soundcloud, but sincerely, good luck.

Just curious, why does it so objectionable that you are limited to 15 tracks of free hosting?

By limiting the free tracks they might potentially increase the quality of what is available by weeding out people (like me and probably a fair number of the people here) that keep uploading tracks and do no promotion and hence attract no customers to the site.

I am pretty thankful that for all their warts that SoundCloud exists. And a track limit for the free service doesn't strike me as unreasonable. You can always take older tracks off.

colonel_mustard

I don’t read this as doom news either. Everybody showing off their best 15 tracks isn’t the worst thing ever. Surely other hosting sites will emerge as a reaction and people can link to them from their Soundcloud?

Caveat: I hope they implement the change as a “moving forward” policy and let whatever’s there already (at time of policy change) remain. Seems unfair otherwise.

Just my tuppence.

LinearLineman

I pay less than $10 a month for SC and am way happy with their UI, stats, messaging and uploading. I upload about a dozen tracks a month and it seems like a very reasonable deal especially since they are losing money! I guess I am subsidizing all the free users and I’m ok with that cause I have 12 albums on BandCamp for free with apparently no limit. I guess the paying publishers there are subsidizing me!

I know most of us here are stretched for dough, but the get as much for free mentality is just that... an idea that springs forth from our fecund brains. It seems to be more prevalent with iOS users. I wonder why.

colonel_mustard

@LinearLineman said:
I pay less than $10 a month for SC and am way happy with their UI, stats, messaging and uploading. I upload about a dozen tracks a month and it seems like a very reasonable deal especially since they are losing money! I guess I am subsidizing all the free users and I’m ok with that cause I have 12 albums on BandCamp for free with apparently no limit. I guess the paying publishers there are subsidizing me!

I know most of us here are stretched for dough, but the get as much for free mentality is just that... an idea that springs forth from our fecund brains. It seems to be more prevalent with iOS users. I wonder why.

Let’s talk at the grocery. Gotta stock up on canned goods, bottled water and batteries all of a sudden

zpxlng

@espiegel123 said:
Just curious, why does it so objectionable that you are limited to 15 tracks of free hosting?

Did I sound grumpy? I have no objection; I don't care enough about soundcloud. I'm just saying, it's not gonna work for me.

Soundcloud, for like a whole generation now, has been known as the place where you can upload any and all of your crazy audio shit, for whatever purpose, for an audience of three or three thousand, for free. That's it's reputation; it's like Imgur but for sound. If they want to change that, they can try, but it's gonna lead to a lot of confusion and disappointment, especially for its many, many young and casual users.

Having to delete older tracks when you hit that limit of 15 is a bummer and a hassle too. Who knows when an older track might suddenly 'catch' somewhere? Or what if your project is uploading a tune every day for a month, or every week for a year?

Like I said, they can do what they want, but it's a shame, and it's gonna make the internet a slightly more boring place.

LinearLineman

@colonel_mustard, don’t worry, my friend, the first fifteen items are free 😉

colonel_mustard

@LinearLineman said:
@colonel_mustard, don’t worry, my friend, the first fifteen items are free 😉

To the booze aisle!

ashen_hand

Sound Cloud has always been there for us, hosting projects and links for free, even if it’s as doomed as yahoo. The best part about sound cloud is the message feature and sharing private tracks, even if it’s low res. It’s been a good platform for getting to know like minds. I hope it sticks around and people still continue to upload there, limits be damned.

drez

@zpxlng said:

@espiegel123 said:
Just curious, why does it so objectionable that you are limited to 15 tracks of free hosting?

Did I sound grumpy? I have no objection; I don't care enough about soundcloud. I'm just saying, it's not gonna work for me.

Soundcloud, for like a whole generation now, has been known as the place where you can upload any and all of your crazy audio shit, for whatever purpose, for an audience of three or three thousand, for free. That's it's reputation; it's like Imgur but for sound. If they want to change that, they can try, but it's gonna lead to a lot of confusion and disappointment, especially for its many, many young and casual users.

Having to delete older tracks when you hit that limit of 15 is a bummer and a hassle too. Who knows when an older track might suddenly 'catch' somewhere? Or what if your project is uploading a tune every day for a month, or every week for a year?

Like I said, they can do what they want, but it's a shame, and it's gonna make the internet a slightly more boring place.

Let me see if I can understand how you feel in a metaphor...

Everybody parties at Steve’s house. Like every single weekend we are inviting everybody we know to show up and just kind of hang out and drink. We store our booze there in his fridge and kinda trash the place, but Steve doesn’t care. Sure, he cleans up after us and makes sure we all get home safe, but come on...I mean...it’s Steve! He’s always taking care of everybody! He’s been doing it since high school. Sure we’re in our thirties and we could store our beer in our own house....oh wait...hell Steve even BUY’s our beer for us and stores it! That Steve, such a great guy.

Sucks we won’t be able to party at Steve’s anymore because he’s homeless. Where did he work anyway? I never saw him with any cash...

Ah well, I hear Dave from college just got a sweet apartment downtown! I’m sure he won’t care if we crash there. Wonder if he’s got any beer?...

walkie

That metaphor would work if Steve was also selling advertising and/or charging people VIP access to the parties!

Obviously SoundCloud can do whatever they need to do and nobody is entitled to free storage of audio files, but the Pro subscribers are both the customers and the product, which still seems like a weird situation to me.

dayton_mike

Eh not a big loss, I’ve had my sc account for years but at a certain point my plays went way down to almost nothing. I’ve been exploring other options was primarily posting to YouTube but there are some potential upcoming issues with them as well. The most promising for me at this point might be Choon.

Fingolfinzzz

Wish I could keep uploading more but it’s fine, I’d rather they do what they can to stay alive than not have the platform. It’ll keep me rotating more and maybe I’ll get more music finished that way

NoiseHorse

So.. an actual audio question: Now that you can upload losses tracks instead of 128 kbps , are you going to finalize a track differently? Different format than WAV? Different but rate? Different Lufs track level? More bass? More high end?
Somebody quick teach me?

zpxlng

@drez said:
Let me see if I can understand how you feel in a metaphor...

Everybody parties at Steve’s house. Like every single weekend we are inviting everybody we know to show up and just kind of hang out and drink. We store our booze there in his fridge and kinda trash the place, but Steve doesn’t care. Sure, he cleans up after us and makes sure we all get home safe, but come on...I mean...it’s Steve! He’s always taking care of everybody! He’s been doing it since high school. Sure we’re in our thirties and we could store our beer in our own house....oh wait...hell Steve even BUY’s our beer for us and stores it! That Steve, such a great guy.

Sucks we won’t be able to party at Steve’s anymore because he’s homeless. Where did he work anyway? I never saw him with any cash...

Ah well, I hear Dave from college just got a sweet apartment downtown! I’m sure he won’t care if we crash there. Wonder if he’s got any beer?...

Is Steve a friend of yours or something

blakkaz

@NoiseHorse said:
So.. an actual audio question: Now that you can upload losses tracks instead of 128 kbps , are you going to finalize a track differently? Different format than WAV? Different but rate? Different Lufs track level? More bass? More high end?
Somebody quick teach me?

Most streaming platforms have a FAQ covering this stuff.
From there, it's really just a little trial and error.

What’s the best file I can upload?

We recommend you to upload in a lossless format like WAV, FLAC, AIFF, or ALAC. If you can, the bit depth and sample rate should be 16 bit and 48 kHz respectively.

When you upload a track on SoundCloud, we optimize it for streaming. As part of that process, we resample and transcode it to a high-performance codec. These codecs are highly optimized, but they can increase peak levels, which can cause clipping. We recommend that you leave between -0.5 and -1 dBFS of headroom to prevent artifacts like clipping during transcoding. Make sure to check the resulting stream in the rare case where more headroom is required.

https://help.soundcloud.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003452847-Uploading-requirements