I've been helping several clients evaluate AI music tools for their content creation pipelines, and my own testing led me to make the same switch recently. The core trade-off you've identified is spot on.
Udio's output is indeed more musically interesting and less formulaic than Soundraw's. The genres feel more authentic, and the arrangements have more surprise and depth. However, the control mechanism—primarily relying on descriptive prompts and "extend" functions—feels like a step backwards for workflow design. With Soundraw, I could reliably dial in a specific mood, length, and structure. With Udio, it's more of a creative lottery, even with well-crafted prompts.
This creates a practical dilemma:
* For brainstorming and inspiration, Udio is superior.
* For producing a track that fits a pre-defined video segment or ad spot with exact timing, the process becomes inefficient and unpredictable.
I'm curious how others are navigating this. Specifically:
* Have you developed prompt strategies or workflows to impose more structure on Udio's output?
* Are you using Udio for initial ideation and then moving to another tool for final, controlled production?
* How does the pricing model impact your approach, given the need for more generations to hit a specific target?
From a consultancy perspective, the "best tool" now heavily depends on whether the priority is creative exploration or reproducible, controlled output.