Show HN: Professional sound effects for UI projects(soundkit.io)
soundkit.io
Show HN: Professional sound effects for UI projects
https://soundkit.io/
53 comments
I should also mention, all feedback is greatly appreciated. The original kit is meant as a general purpose pack. As we learn exactly what works and doesn't for users, we'll build out specific packs to add on.
I've been using freesounds. They have a large selection of free sound effects: https://www.freesound.org
But Creative Commons doesn't permit the use of the art past marketing. Not allowed to include it in the actual project for instance. Do I have that right?
None of the CC licenses that I know of distinguish between marketing and other forms of use. The CC licenses have a range of restrictions depending on the specific one used. Freesound has a faq at https://www.freesound.org/help/faq/#licenses-0 The actual name of the license pretty much tells you what the restriction is though.
by-nc
CC can be great for a lot of things. The biggest issue is that many people require attribution which can be tricky depending on the project. But there are some good options for CC that work well.
Just curious, which kinds of projects make attribution difficult? The worst I can come up with is that you'd have to include it in the small print at the bottom of an ad. Most other things (software, videos, websites) will have a more discreet place to shove all your credits.
In general, I think CC-BY is fantastic. CC-BY-SA is typically useless for anything except open source projects.
In general, I think CC-BY is fantastic. CC-BY-SA is typically useless for anything except open source projects.
Think playing cards with CC images, or business cards with CC logo. Small things with no room for the possibly-large attribution url.
Neat. The license terms make it difficult/impossible to use for something created by a business, or other kind of team, rather than a single individual:
> The maximum number of users of this sound effects library is limited to ONE. It is unlawful to distribute any of the audio files to ANY ADDITIONAL USERS. This license allows ONE individual...
So... if a company (or university department, or non-profit entity, or small volunteer team) wants to use it, they need a license for... every employee that has access to the source code repo? And another one for every new hire? Or...?
> The maximum number of users of this sound effects library is limited to ONE. It is unlawful to distribute any of the audio files to ANY ADDITIONAL USERS. This license allows ONE individual...
So... if a company (or university department, or non-profit entity, or small volunteer team) wants to use it, they need a license for... every employee that has access to the source code repo? And another one for every new hire? Or...?
The license is designed to work like a font or stock photo license. It's allows for a specific user individual or within a company to use the sounds for as many projects as they'd like.
From my experience this is typical for most licenses on most royalty free items. The same type of license can be found at sites like Shutterstock at the Boom Library that another user mentioned in the comments.
It's just the nature of the business. I believe the prices are fair for the quantity and unlimited project use. But it wouldn't be fair to just then share all of them with as many people as you had in an organization.
From my experience this is typical for most licenses on most royalty free items. The same type of license can be found at sites like Shutterstock at the Boom Library that another user mentioned in the comments.
It's just the nature of the business. I believe the prices are fair for the quantity and unlimited project use. But it wouldn't be fair to just then share all of them with as many people as you had in an organization.
I guess i haven't worked with this kind of stuff before, but i'm having trouble figuring out how it would work with these sounds.
These sounds are meant for web apps, right? I would imagine they will wind up in a source control repository for a web app.
So there's only one individual that's allowed to add them to the source control repo?
The license says "It is unlawful to distribute any of the audio files to ANY ADDITIONAL USERS", does that mean it's unlawful if other individuals have access to that repo and check it out? Or they can check out the repo, but they can't... write code that uses the sounds added to the repo, only that one guy can write code? Can another individual fix bugs in his code? Can another individual deploy the code? Or to the other extreme, as long as you have one individual committing all the sound files to the source repo, the entire rest of the company can then write code using them?
None of those make much sense, I can't think of anything else that does.
But if Boom Library has the same sort of license and has been succesful, then either it makes sense in a way I don't understand... or nobody uses Boom Library for projects from companies or team entities, just one-man operations... or everyone's just ignoring the license and doing what they think probably makes sense.
Looking up the Boom license, it does say "If you want to purchase a multiuser license, please contact us directly." So I'd guess some are doing that, and others are probably ignoring and violating the license.
These sounds are meant for web apps, right? I would imagine they will wind up in a source control repository for a web app.
So there's only one individual that's allowed to add them to the source control repo?
The license says "It is unlawful to distribute any of the audio files to ANY ADDITIONAL USERS", does that mean it's unlawful if other individuals have access to that repo and check it out? Or they can check out the repo, but they can't... write code that uses the sounds added to the repo, only that one guy can write code? Can another individual fix bugs in his code? Can another individual deploy the code? Or to the other extreme, as long as you have one individual committing all the sound files to the source repo, the entire rest of the company can then write code using them?
None of those make much sense, I can't think of anything else that does.
But if Boom Library has the same sort of license and has been succesful, then either it makes sense in a way I don't understand... or nobody uses Boom Library for projects from companies or team entities, just one-man operations... or everyone's just ignoring the license and doing what they think probably makes sense.
Looking up the Boom license, it does say "If you want to purchase a multiuser license, please contact us directly." So I'd guess some are doing that, and others are probably ignoring and violating the license.
I appreciate your concerns. Let me see if I can ease them. The intention is to make this product as useful as possible at a good price. The license is in place to try and keep a few basic things from happening.
1.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then adds the sounds to a commercial product like a toolkit that they want to sell. Or they add the sounds to a website template that they sell to others. Anything where another user would come along and use those sounds commercially for their own projects.
2.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then gives it to their friends for free.
3.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then places it on a server at an office for everyone to use.
4.) Someone accesses a repo who doesn't have a license for SoundKit, they pull the sounds and use them on another project.
On the other hand, if you buy the license and then you work on a project like a web or mobile app and you want to add the sounds, go for it. If someone else adds to the project or makes changes, that's not a problem. As long as a license owner is involved with the project and added them.
I really don't want to limit the use of the product, I just have to try and keep from everyone giving it to everyone for every use. And regarding the company issue, I should add a multiuser license. It is common in these situations.
At the end of the day, most people are probably not using their licenses correctly for all sorts of design elements, but this gives us some sort of protection in a worst case scenario.
I'll try and update the wording of the license to be as clear as possible for future buyers. If you have already purchased, feat not, the usage will become more flexible, not less.
1.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then adds the sounds to a commercial product like a toolkit that they want to sell. Or they add the sounds to a website template that they sell to others. Anything where another user would come along and use those sounds commercially for their own projects.
2.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then gives it to their friends for free.
3.) Purchaser buys SoundKit then places it on a server at an office for everyone to use.
4.) Someone accesses a repo who doesn't have a license for SoundKit, they pull the sounds and use them on another project.
On the other hand, if you buy the license and then you work on a project like a web or mobile app and you want to add the sounds, go for it. If someone else adds to the project or makes changes, that's not a problem. As long as a license owner is involved with the project and added them.
I really don't want to limit the use of the product, I just have to try and keep from everyone giving it to everyone for every use. And regarding the company issue, I should add a multiuser license. It is common in these situations.
At the end of the day, most people are probably not using their licenses correctly for all sorts of design elements, but this gives us some sort of protection in a worst case scenario.
I'll try and update the wording of the license to be as clear as possible for future buyers. If you have already purchased, feat not, the usage will become more flexible, not less.
> On the other hand, if you buy the license and then you work on a project like a web or mobile app and you want to add the sounds, go for it.
Those scenarios involve redistributing the audio files to a public audience, which the license loudly forbids in its current form.
Those scenarios involve redistributing the audio files to a public audience, which the license loudly forbids in its current form.
The license works the same as any other license you probably have for fonts, images, sounds, etc. For example, if you load a web font in an app, you most likely have a single use license, but thousands of users may use the font when they use the app. They don't however have a right to use that font in other applications.
This is similar. However, I'm going to work on wording that makes the concerned users more comfortable. I understand that this is a tricky situation. And I'm much more interested design then legal matters. I hope I can ease the concerns.
This is similar. However, I'm going to work on wording that makes the concerned users more comfortable. I understand that this is a tricky situation. And I'm much more interested design then legal matters. I hope I can ease the concerns.
I mean it's true that your terms are standard for the likes of Getty Images. But I think what this conversation reveals is that the userbase of Getty Images and software developers don't have a lot of overlap.
I think if you want to target a software developer audience you will need a single-project, multiple-user model. The majority of projects where we would use this are a revolving door of contractors, and nobody is going to do the accounting to figure out how many licenses that is.
I think if you want to target a software developer audience you will need a single-project, multiple-user model. The majority of projects where we would use this are a revolving door of contractors, and nobody is going to do the accounting to figure out how many licenses that is.
In the spirit of open conversation, I'd welcome feedback from the group on this from CreativeMarket.
https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple
Perhaps something along these lines will make everyone feel good about it.
https://creativemarket.com/licenses/simple
Perhaps something along these lines will make everyone feel good about it.
It's better. I still think that "contributes to the core value" is vague.
I do too a little. So I left that wording out of our rewritten license. Like the beginning of ours says "We're all adults here." The point is, don't steal by giving it away and otherwise use it like crazy.
A question for the group here, would a per project license be preferred over a per user license?
I'd strongly prefer per-user, but maybe you could allow the choice at time of purchase?
Per project licensing seems pretty fair to me.
These are some nice UI sounds! If you're interested in learning more about the use of sounds in UI, I have a blog just about that called Beyond The Beep http://beyondthebeep.tumblr.com
Interesting, although without videos or animations along with the sounds it's not very effective. I don't get the feel for the UI with text/sounds/static images.
I second the comment about the lack of videos / gifs.
Also, what websites would you use if you'd needed sounds for your app?
Also, what websites would you use if you'd needed sounds for your app?
If you need something a bit bigger and fancier, I can recommended The Interface from Boom Library: http://www.boomlibrary.com/boomlibrary/products/the-interfac...
It's considerably more expensive but also considerably larger.
I'm a huge fan of everything Boom do. Their nature stuff is amazing. SFX design is in my list of fantasy jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2prl_DTrukc
It's considerably more expensive but also considerably larger.
I'm a huge fan of everything Boom do. Their nature stuff is amazing. SFX design is in my list of fantasy jobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2prl_DTrukc
Awesome work, definitely keep going at it. This is an overlooked aspect of UX and you could write a lot about how to use sound effectively in an app.
At rapt.fm I would spend time hunting for the right sound, it was often really hard and rewarding. Sometimes I ended up using effects seemingly unrelated the intended action, but in a humorous way (for example, a smack sound for challenging people to rap battles).
A lot of thought has to go into sound design. Games have done it for years but with phone, pad, and real-time web apps it is becoming crucial.
At rapt.fm I would spend time hunting for the right sound, it was often really hard and rewarding. Sometimes I ended up using effects seemingly unrelated the intended action, but in a humorous way (for example, a smack sound for challenging people to rap battles).
A lot of thought has to go into sound design. Games have done it for years but with phone, pad, and real-time web apps it is becoming crucial.
Awesome effort and always great to see Atlanta on HN! Thanks so much for sharing this, can't wait to pick it up and give it a try. The demo was one of the best presentations I've seen in a while.
Minor nit - I went to check who was behind it and the https link in the footer hangs, http://dunktank.co works fine though
Minor nit - I went to check who was behind it and the https link in the footer hangs, http://dunktank.co works fine though
We just fixed the link. Thanks for catching this!
Thanks everyone for the support today. The biggest concern has been the license and uses. In trying to make it easier to understand, we have rewritten the license in simpler terms.
For anyone who purchased previously, no rights have been removed. In fact, the new license is more flexible. If anyone has questions, please reach out.
The new license can be found here. https://soundkit.io/license.html
For anyone who purchased previously, no rights have been removed. In fact, the new license is more flexible. If anyone has questions, please reach out.
The new license can be found here. https://soundkit.io/license.html
Very slick.
I would definitely use this if I had a need for it beyond changing the default notifications on my phone/desktop.
One suggestion, I think the those little 'devices' are the perfect way to demonstrate why I would want this, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me that they were interactive at all.
A unique color or subtle animation for the play buttons to make them eye-catching might be worthwhile since clicking was definitely a revelation.
I would definitely use this if I had a need for it beyond changing the default notifications on my phone/desktop.
One suggestion, I think the those little 'devices' are the perfect way to demonstrate why I would want this, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me that they were interactive at all.
A unique color or subtle animation for the play buttons to make them eye-catching might be worthwhile since clicking was definitely a revelation.
Great feedback. We'll look into making it more clear for future visitors.
Cool. Problem is though that on the rare occasions where I need sounds I need very specific sounds, and if I can't listen to/preview the sound I'm not going to buy the library. Case in point, a stopwatch app I build a few weeks ago that needed beeps like a hand-held stopwatch makes.
http://bit.ly/12dOjeH
http://bit.ly/12dOjeH
Great stuff! I don't need them for any projects at the moment, but I'll probably wind up buying 'em for future use.
I simply love those video demos. Great presentation! Gives me high hopes for the quality of sound files. Purchased immediately.
I'm happy you like them. We worked hard on the product.
Credit for the animations goes to http://chika-yeah.com
Credit for the animations goes to http://chika-yeah.com
Seconded; I think the swishy UI interactions and the sound effects are perfect for each other. There's nothing worse than a terrible site hiding a great product, but you guys nailed it. Purchased!
Thank you so much. I was recently looking for a UI sound library, but was not able to find one to fit my small hobby projects. This is just awesome. I love your license! Best luck with it.
Hope it serves you well. We welcome feedback and will hopefully be able to offer more sound packs in the future.
I was about to buy, but the sound of Bongo Beat Down cuts off too quickly. How can I be sure that I'm getting quality sound effects out of the set 300?
I'm not sure if there was a playback issue, but I've replaced the sample anyway to be safe.
The point of the product is to be a good value for the price. I encourage you to listen to all of the sounds available in the videos and listening samples to decide if it's a good value.
The point of the product is to be a good value for the price. I encourage you to listen to all of the sounds available in the videos and listening samples to decide if it's a good value.
What SW/HW did you use to make these?
On the software side it's a combination of Reason for synth sounds and Audition for recording and editing. Sounds were recorded with the Reason Balance box and with a Zoom H6 portable recorder using various mics.
Everything was mastered in Pro Tools at another studio for consistency.
Everything was mastered in Pro Tools at another studio for consistency.
Good job on these!
Nice... will buy.
Sadly for UI work the selection and quality are just not there.
First of all, a lot of sounds (especially those in the MUSICAL TONES / RHYTHMIC / SPACEY folders) are more than a second long and use more than one note/sound. This is extremely distracting and out of place for UI - the sounds have too much "story" to them already. In UIs, the sound should subtly accompany the action, give it some weight, and that's it. It should definitely not become the user's center of attention or even be noticeable at all. That's a really hard thing to do, that even the big players fuck up - a lot of alert sounds on major operating systems are terrible, if not down right terrifying (one of my favorites ~good~ examples, as a contrast is Tweetbot 2).
There is also the problem that a lot of sounds have audible static/background noise. A very noticeable one is Air Pop.wav in INPUTS. On my K240s it's borderline painful.
The names of the folders are quite disappointing. SPACEY? LOOPS? RHYTHMIC? A solid set of UI sounds would have folders like APERTURE SOUNDS (with sounds from dozens of existing cameras + synthesized ones), CLICKS (with sounds from a variety buttons, some clicky, some soft, some very short, some a bit longer , some plastic-y, some metal-ly, etc.), SLIDERS (same as buttons but with sliders), and so on. Those are the sounds that UI designers need.
The best ones are in INPUTS - some amount are usable, some could be usable with some editing (e.g. the slider sounds that'd need to be split into 3-4 distinct sounds for each file and then mapped to a slider), but some remain completely useless for UI work (e.g. Twangy.wav, which would make any interface feel like Microsoft Bob, or Reverse Woodpecker.wav which would make the user feel like their computer is glitching).
I'm disappointed because I feel like what I've bought has nothing to do with what I, as a UI designer, was led to believe I'd get :(