DEV Community

Cover image for I Tried Building a Lo-Fi Channel from Scratch — What AI Audio Tools Got Right (and Wrong)
Nano
Nano

Posted on

I Tried Building a Lo-Fi Channel from Scratch — What AI Audio Tools Got Right (and Wrong)

If you’re a developer, chances are your workflow looks like this:

  • Open VS Code
  • Pour coffee
  • Turn on some kind of 24/7 lo-fi playlist

It’s practically part of the stack at this point.
Recently I started recording time-lapse videos of my debugging sessions for a side project. Naturally, I wanted background music. But then I hit the universal wall:
Copyright.
I couldn’t use the tracks I normally listened to, and I didn’t want YouTube to greet me with a “This video is not monetizable” warning.
So I wondered:
“Can I generate my own lo-fi music without becoming a producer or diving into music theory rabbit holes?”
Turns out, the answer is somewhere between yes and it depends.
Here’s what I learned.

Understanding What Gives lo-fi Its “Chill”

Before touching any tool, I needed to understand what I was actually trying to replicate.
Lo-fi isn’t just “lower quality audio.” It has an aesthetic:

  • Swingy drum loops
  • Jazzy extended chords
  • Imperfections like vinyl crackle, tape hiss, rain noise
  • A relaxed tempo usually around 70–90 BPM

Early algorithmic music always missed this vibe. It sounded like a Windows 95 MIDI file trying to imitate hip-hop.
So the challenge wasn’t generating notes. It was generating texture.

My Experiment: Manual vs. AI vs. Stock Sites
I realized I wasn't just looking for a beat maker; I needed a specific Lofi Music Generator that understood texture and imperfection. So I tested how fast I could create a copyright-safe playlist using different approaches.
My criteria:

  1. Vibe: Does it actually sound like lo-fi?
  2. Quality: At least 44.1kHz WAV
  3. Rights: Must be safe for monetized videos

I tried three categories:

  1. Open-source Python models
  2. Commercial browser-based tools
  3. Traditional stock-music platforms

What surprised me

  • The Python repos were fun to tinker with, but GPU-heavy and prone to weird artifacts.
  • Stock sites solved the copyright problem—but not my budget problem.
  • Browser-based AI tools felt like the middle ground: fast, simple, and didn’t require CUDA.

This was the point where I tested several tools (including Suno-style generators, open-source models, and a platform called MusicCreator AI, among others). They each had their own quirks, but the browser-based category overall felt immediately usable.

My Workflow: Assisted Creativity Instead of Full Automation

I eventually settled on a workflow that blended generation + curation.

Step 1: Pick the mood
Most tools let you choose tags like chill, focus, or jazzy. I usually stuck to something slower and mellow.

Step 2: Generate 2–3 versions
Most AI tools take around 45–60 seconds to generate a 2–3 minute track.
This alone saved me hours.

Step 3: Curate like a human
Even good generators produce a few generic tracks.
The trick is selecting the best ones—not hitting “generate” endlessly.

Step 4: Technical checks
Because I'm a nerd, I pulled the tracks into Audacity:

  • Format: 44.1kHz / 16-bit WAV
  • Loudness: Most outputs averaged around -14 LUFS (good for YouTube)
  • Upper frequencies: Snares kept clarity up to ~16kHz instead of the muffled sound some early AI tools produced

These numbers didn’t make the music better, but they reassured me that I wasn’t uploading low-quality audio to my channel.

The Results: Surprisingly Good

I uploaded a one-hour mix of the curated tracks to a small test channel.
Here’s what happened:

  • Copyright issues: None
  • Audience retention: ~45% on a 20-minute coding video
  • Production time: ~20 minutes to assemble a 10-track mini “album”

For comparison:

  • My last human-made beat (using FL Studio) took 4 hours
  • A Fiverr producer charged me $50 per track
  • Stock sites cost monthly subscriptions AI didn’t completely replace creativity, but it definitely replaced the pain.

Why This Matters for Developers & Creators

As developers, we’re already familiar with “assistive tools.”
GitHub Copilot doesn’t replace coding—it accelerates it.
AI audio tools feel the same.

  • Game devs can create ambient loops
  • YouTubers can fill silence without licensing headaches
  • Indie app builders can add custom soundtracks in minutes
  • Small creators don’t need full DAW knowledge anymore

The entry barrier for background audio is basically gone.
But here’s the catch:

  • You still need to curate.
  • Generating 50 tracks is easy.
  • Choosing the best 5 is the real work. Humans still matter.

Final Thoughts

The gap between “algorithmically generated” and “artistically composed” is shrinking fast. The tracks I made contained the swing, the ambiance, and even the subtle imperfections that define lo-fi.
If you’ve avoided making videos or game demos because of background music licensing, I’d encourage experimenting with AI tools. Not because they’re magical—but because they turn a week-long task into a coffee-break task.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got code to write and some freshly generated beats waiting for me.

Top comments (0)