SoundCloud Alternative - SongBox

[SongBox]

Hi everyone. My name is Mick and I'm the creator of SongBox. You may have seen my ads running on the forum for the past several months.

Sadly, just after I paid to take out the ads on VI-Control my life went a little bit crazy and I wasn't able to nurture the product the way I wanted to and there were bugs in the system that probably made anyone who signed up think the service was sub-par.

Well... I'm back on SongBox full time (with investment!) and there have been a tonne of improvements over the past few weeks. I'm dead set on making SongBox a viable alternative to Soundcloud for professionals who value privacy and security (and no bots, and no ads, and no clutter etc).

https://songbox.rocks

Thanks so much if you've read this and I'd love to hear any feedback (even the bad stuff if you signed up over the past few months).

Click to read more...

 

[JohnG]

Really happy to see an alternative to You-Know-What available. Welcome Mick.

 

[SongBox]

Thank you John. I'm very happy to be back working on SongBox as a full time concern. I'm a tiny fish in a gigantic pond but I believe there's value here for professionals.

One of the users of the platform emailed me to say that he felt that SongBox was to Soundcloud what Vimeo is to Youtube and that really inspired me to press on. I feel like that's exactly what I'm going for; if Soundcloud is for the squabbling masses, then SongBox is for professionals who know better.

 

[erica-grace]

Welcome Mick!

Why is SB better than SC? Not trying to insinuate it isn't - I just would like to know why people should use your service over the other.

 

[ArtTurnerMusic]

Nice feel to the site. Best wishes going forward!
Have you considered offering a trial period at the Pro level? It's kind of difficult to evaluate at the Free level.

 

[Polkasound]

I have to be honest -- the concept of "John Smith listened to Aftermath for 53 seconds" disturbs me. Stats are great, but not when they're personally identifiable. It's too invasive in my opinion. When someone joins SongBox, is their listening activity private or shared by default? Can they opt out of sharing their activity?

 

[synkrotron]

No good for me.

I currently pay £75 a year for my SC Pro Unlimited account.

I can upload as many files as I want.

I can upload files up to 4GB in size.

Typically, my pieces are ten minute long 24 bit 44.1kHz WAV files = 151MB

I occasionally create tracks over 250MB

Your lowest paid tier is $62.40 per year which for me, at the moment, equates to around £75 and there will probably be VAT to be added to that. The top tier is around £132.60 per year, plus VAT.


What does "Remove branding from embeds" mean?

I don't like the ability to see that everyone who listens to my crap clicks away after two seconds. Does nothing at all for my ego.


As bad as SoundCloud is said to be, I do not see SongBox being a viable alternative to me at the moment.

Sorry, but kudos to you for getting into the hosting/streaming game.

cheers

andy

 

[SongBox]

This is awesome feedback and I really appreciate you taking the time. SongBox absolutely won't be for everybody (is any product?) but it's still great for me to understand exactly why it's not for you. Really helps me understand and shape future development.

In a former life I was a professional musician signed to a major label and I would have really valued the thing which you seem to dislike the most (seeing people stop listening after X seconds), because to me that's exactly the info I need to see which tracks are resonating and which aren't. Not for everyone though - totally get it.

Regards your comment about taxes - no. The price you see is the price you pay. I've been thinking about opening up the top tier to unlimited tracks etc. You may have just convinced me to push the button on that.

Something i'd like to make clear is that SongBox is a small startup with big intentions and nothing is set in stone. I will constantly be evolving and making changes based on feedback exactly like this. The one and only thing I can't and won't do is have a massive free tier. I need to keep the lights on and I'm not subsidised by ads and other external revenue in the same way that a mega company like Soundcloud is.

The SongBox logo is on our embed widget. Some folks may not like this so at the paid levels this can be removed so you just have a plain white player.

Thanks again!

No good for me.

I currently pay £75 a year for my SC Pro Unlimited account.

I can upload as many files as I want.

I can upload files up to 4GB in size.

Typically, my pieces are ten minute long 24 bit 44.1kHz WAV files = 151MB

I occasionally create tracks over 250MB

Your lowest paid tier is $62.40 per year which for me, at the moment, equates to around £75 and there will probably be VAT to be added to that. The top tier is around £132.60 per year, plus VAT.


What does "Remove branding from embeds" mean?

I don't like the ability to see that everyone who listens to my crap clicks away after two seconds. Does nothing at all for my ego.


As bad as SoundCloud is said to be, I do not see SongBox being a viable alternative to me at the moment.

Sorry, but kudos to you for getting into the hosting/streaming game.

cheers

andy

 

[SongBox]

Hello! and thanks, that's a great question.

I don't know if I would say SongBox is "better" so to speak; Soundcloud is obviously a very successful platform and there's a reason for that.

I'd say SongBox is different. I feel like Soundcloud for many is about exposure and discovery. Songbox does have that element but it's core use is for the private sharing of tracks between individuals. I'm coming from a background of being a professional songwriter (10+ years ago) and in that situation it's not a great idea to stick your work up on a social network (which is what Soundcloud is).

Further to that (the differentiating factors IMO) when you add tracks to SongBox they are completely private. We will not - in any capacity - use or share your work. That's explicit. All we do is host and provide the reports on usage. There are also no bots, no ads or anything like that. Focus is on clean, elegant design.

More stuff - our reporting is pretty good I believe. You can create a SongBox and send it to Mr A, another for Mr B and another for Ms C - our reporting tells you exactly who listened, what tracks they listened to, and for how long. This is great for getting to the bottom of who your music is resonating with and who it isn't. You can also see really clearly thanks to the average listen time if your tracks are drawing people in, or if people are tuning out 15 seconds in.

As I said above (or below?) I absolutely don't intend this to be for everyone. I believe that those who find value in it will really find value in it, and other won't - and that's fine.

I'm also constantly evolving and iterating based on feedback from folks like yourself on VI-Control.

Thanks so much.

Welcome Mick!

Why is SB better than SC? Not trying to insinuate it isn't - I just would like to know why people should use your service over the other.

 

[synkrotron]

SongBox absolutely won't be for everybody

Absolutely

And I am no "pro" in the music industry and make very, very little from my art (£200 gross since 1979). So I have to be a little bit careful with the cash and all these little subscriptions would add up.

I need to see which tracks are resonating and which aren't

I understand that. My own personal experience, based on my Bandcamp stats, which gives you skip/partial/full data, most of my stuff will be, "John Smith listened for 2s" and I would prefer not to see that.

On SoundCloud my most important stats are the number of downloads.

Regards your comment about taxes - no. The price you see is the price you pay.

Thanks for confirming that.

Something i'd like to make clear is that SongBox is a small startup with big intentions and nothing is set in stone. I will constantly be evolving and making changes based on feedback exactly like this. The one and only thing I can't and won't do is have a massive free tier. I need to keep the lights on and I'm not subsidised by ads and other external revenue in the same way that a mega company like Soundcloud is.

I will definitely keep my eye on how things develop at SongBox.

The SongBox logo is on our embed widget. Some folks may not like this so at the paid levels this can be removed so you just have a plain white player.

Thank you for confirming that also.


cheers,

andy

 

[SongBox]

Oh no EVERYTHING is private - that thing on the homepage is just an example of the types of information you can get from SongBox.

The whole concept of SongBox is based around privacy. It is not a social network. No-one outside of you would even know you had an account.

I have to be honest -- the concept of "John Smith listened to Aftermath for 53 seconds" disturbs me. Stats are great, but not when they're personally identifiable. It's too invasive in my opinion. When someone joins SongBox, is their listening activity private or shared by default? Can they opt out of sharing their activity?

 

[SongBox]

Cheers andy!

Absolutely

And I am no "pro" in the music industry and make very, very little from my art (£200 gross since 1979). So I have to be a little bit careful with the cash and all these little subscriptions would add up.



I understand that. My own personal experience, based on my Bandcamp stats, which gives you skip/partial/full data, most of my stuff will be, "John Smith listened for 2s" and I would prefer not to see that.

On SoundCloud my most important stats are the number of downloads.



Thanks for confirming that.



I will definitely keep my eye on how things develop at SongBox.



Thank you for confirming that also.


cheers,

andy

 

[synkrotron]

Actually, I have one other quite important question;

What quality does SongBox stream at?

Bandcamp, for instance, requires you to upload lossless files and then converts them to a 128kbps lossy file for streaming.

SoundCloud is similar in that you can upload a higher quality file but you have to subscribe to their Go+ service in order to listen to a slightly better 250kbps lossy file.

I had a look at your site again and I could not find any information regarding that.

cheers

andy

 

[SongBox]

Cheers Andy, right now whatever file you put up is what comes down but sorting out streaming properly is the next big thing on the roadmap.

Tell me this.... (I already feel like I know the answer) Is this a deal breaker do you think for most folk?

What would you like to see from a streaming solution?

Actually, I have one other quite important question;

What quality does SongBox stream at?

Bandcamp, for instance, requires you to upload lossless files and then converts them to a 128kbps lossy file for streaming.

SoundCloud is similar in that you can upload a higher quality file but you have to subscribe to their Go+ service in order to listen to a slightly better 250kbps lossy file.

I had a look at your site again and I could not find any information regarding that.

cheers

andy

 

[SongBox]

Also.... since we're here.... the track here ((broken link removed)) was recorded and performed by me in my home studio. Well, except the vocals obviously, but all guitars, bass, drums, strings etc are me.

 

[synkrotron]

Is this a deal breaker do you think for most folk?

No, not a deal breaker.

What would you like to see from a streaming solution?

Personally I am happy enough with 128kbps.

Years ago, before I knew what I know now about mastering for steaming, 128kbps files could sound terrible, especially things like cymbals.

Most of the stuff that I stream nowadays sounds much better, even though the bit rate is the same. I'm not technically up on the conversion process but perhaps that has also improved over the years.

But if you wanted to rise above the norm then I suppose 250 or even 320kbps would be a good draw to some.

but all guitars, bass, drums, strings etc are me

Nice

Okay... Now that I am streaming that I notice that in your player it doesn't give an indication of how long the track lasts and where the play position is along the track.

If you are just checking in to listen then that doesn't matter but I, personally, like to know how long a piece is before I listen.


cheers

andy

 

[SongBox]

Great feedback again. I'll look at exposing that this evening! Thanks!

No, not a deal breaker.



Personally I am happy enough with 128kbps.

Years ago, before I knew what I know now about mastering for steaming, 128kbps files could sound terrible, especially things like cymbals.

Most of the stuff that I stream nowadays sounds much better, even though the bit rate is the same. I'm not technically up on the conversion process but perhaps that has also improved over the years.

But if you wanted to rise above the norm then I suppose 250 or even 320kbps would be a good draw to some.



Nice

Okay... Now that I am streaming that I notice that in your player it doesn't give an indication of how long the track lasts and where the play position is along the track.

If you are just checking in to listen then that doesn't matter but I, personally, like to know how long a piece is before I listen.


cheers

andy

 

[Scalms]

Very intriguing company, i would certainly be interested in an alternative to SC. Just some comments, your website looks good but I had just a small suggestion--increase some of the metrics of the "free" plan, like more songs (10-15) and slightly higher file size, etc. I realize you need to make a profit from this, but to grow your company I would think you would want a more attractive "foot-in-the-door" plan (5 song limit is just too low for me).

I am a hobbyist, by no means a professional (maybe one day) but I certainly am a serious musician. With that said funds are limited and paying to share songs right now is not in my plans, especially with free reputable companies like SC out there. With that said, your vision is good, marketing looks good, plans just need some tweaking, but's that just my 2 cents.

Good luck!

 

[SongBox]

Thanks for taking the time to look at the site and have some input. Up until last week the free tier was FAR too generous and this was killing me as i need to pay for the hosting and the streaming bandwidth.

I'm taking onboard your comments and I when i made the change i was thinking "5 or 10?". In the spirit of good product development practices I'm going to stick with 5 for a couple months then switch it up to 10 and see what the conversions look like. Let science decide.

Honestly though, thanks for the feedback. I take it all seriously.

Very intriguing company, i would certainly be interested in an alternative to SC. Just some comments, your website looks good but I had just a small suggestion--increase some of the metrics of the "free" plan, like more songs (10-15) and slightly higher file size, etc. I realize you need to make a profit from this, but to grow your company I would think you would want a more attractive "foot-in-the-door" plan (5 song limit is just too low for me).

I am a hobbyist, by no means a professional (maybe one day) but I certainly am a serious musician. With that said funds are limited and paying to share songs right now is not in my plans, especially with free reputable companies like SC out there. With that said, your vision is good, marketing looks good, plans just need some tweaking, but's that just my 2 cents.

Good luck!

 

[colony nofi]

I'm sure you have done a full competitor analysis. I guess I'm a little confused after looking at alternatives that are out in the market and the cost.

Take a look at Disco. While it is definitely not "social" like songbox and soundcloud, what it does do with keeping copies of all your tracks, libraries, playlists and the like, and the fine grain control you have with sending tracks to people is amazing (as are the stats it provides for listens!) . Plus it works on video as well as music - and hosts other associated files with projects too.
Now obviously it is aimed at larger music houses / music supervisors and the like - but the value proposition is on another level compared to where songbox is.

Part of the problem you face has to do with the way market share / markets are generated within the tech/online world. Its problematic going up against a seasoned player like soundcloud when they have the lions share of the market sown up, and yet a lot of the features you are pitching are based around social (therefore needing the social network for that to be valuable for your paying customers). I'm not sure how I'd proceed. I'd guess this is why a company like disco has gone the route of a more b2b model. I really don't see a way for you to move forward and gain market share without following other tech companies, grabbing a tonne of runway cash and burning it to gain market share BEFORE setting a value proposition that professionals can come in and understand / choose to use.