How to Nightcore a song! (NIGHTCORE TUTORIAL)

[jordesu]

This post is almost a year old lololololol.
I might make a video tutorial if I can be bothered x3

[Kirby]

Nah, don't be bothered.

[jordesu]

I'm not, I would have made it by now if I was ♥

[Sleepwalker000]

THAT'S NOT NIGHTCORE! That's LAZY Nightcore! Nightcore should be a real remix, not just sped up! This is how you make REAL Nightcore. (Note: I haven't actually done this because I have no musical talent whatsoever, but I'm working on it :3)

1. Download and install Audacity
2. Isolate the vocals with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5QC-4jGWA tutorial
3. Speed up and raise pitch with previous method
4. Download and install Linux MultiMedia Studio (LMMS, and it's also for Windows, not sure about Mac)
5.Take some tutorials and spin up some funky beats (yo)
6. Throw it all together!

Note: LMMS is like a free version of FL Studio :)

I hope this works for you! You are going to have to find out how to use it yourself though.

[Kirby]

Sleepwalker000, your creativity is appreciated, but the tutorial provided by the OP describes the methods used by the original Nightcore group themselves and they are certainly more qualified to define 'Nightcore' than you are, being the creators.

It is perfectly fine to possess styles based off of the traditional method that are not as "lazy" but please do not categorize said styles as Nightcore. There is already enough outlying factors to make Nightcore confusing enough as is and there is no need for more of it. Many people have bastardized Nightcore under several roman numerals, uploader names, and additional edits when all Nightcore was originally/always meant to be is a simple raise in speed and pitch.

That's all there is to it. Simple things make all the difference.

[Sleepwalker000]

Awwww... I'm sorry :'(. I thought the original Nightcore songs were real remixes. And I didn't really mean "lazy," I was just goofing around. You people take Nightcore very seriously. But didn't the original creator make some originals, such as "Dum Da Di Do" (I can't put question marks because of my stupid Canadian Multilingual Standard Keyboard, and I'm too lazy too change it). Although I could be mistaken, but I couldn't find any other songs with the same name. And in my defense, I don't think speeding up a song really counts as a remix. But that's just my opinion.

Again, I'm sorry. Please don't hate me.

[Kirby]

None of us in this thread have claimed Nightcore to be a "remix". I don't know if there is any literal definition of "remix" out there - if there isn't, it's up to the person to decide whether or not Nightcore qualifies as a "remix" to them.

I wouldn't say I take Nightcore "seriously" but I just don't find it fair to hold "real remixes" or "enhanced Nightcore" to the same standards as the people who make Nightcore songs using the age-old methods.

The original Nightcore group never composed any of their songs from scratch. They took unknown songs, raised their speed and pitch and released them. These tracks gained more popularity than the original tracks they were based off of. The song you are mentioning is "Dam Dadi Doo" and the original is by Fantasy Project, not Nightcore.

No one hates you. ;)

[RaveComing]

A remix is the atlering of an original work, no matter how big or small the impact the change(s) will have on said work. For exemple, you could remix a song up to the point you can't even reconize it and call it as much of a remix as the song to which you cut 0.1 sec of play time. Very popular are the Time-Expand remix (commonly called extended mix), where the original song will stay untouched up until the outro (which will be significantly extended)

Nightcoreing is the act of raising the speed of a song (idem raising BOTH tempo and pitch). As such it is a (rather simple) remixing method.

However, purists (like me) will tend to draw a line between REMIXING and EDITING. Editing is the act of either changing numerical values of a track (120bpm to 150, raise by an octave, add reverb, etc.) or adding particular musical lines to a track (Vocal up, Bass up, Synth up). Editing is also the act of cutting (and sometimes pasting) parts of the song. A classic example would be a Radio Edit, where the intro of a song will be restricted to the vital minimum (if they even keep an intro)

I hope this answered your questions regarding Remixing

[Ewarnen]

yay this is still here.

anyways people, also make sure that your song does not approach a chipmunk-ish pitch (that is not nightcore, thats alvin and the chipmunks). and secondly, using certain effects as well as bass boost can distort your songs, make sure to maintain sound quality as high as possible (128kbps+ and 320kbps preferred). USE HIGH QUALITY AUDIO FILES for nightcore songs!!!

Hey, I was wondering how I can put on more bass?

[johnnytaboo]

I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to put this out there. I was playing around with one of the recommended programs trying to make my own nightcores, and I discovered that it's not as easy as people think. There is definitely an art to this process. For anyone (like me) who may be reading through the web about nightcore, know that there is surely more to this genre than simply raising the pitch and tempo.
I tried a couple different songs and all of them seemed to come out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too fast, or hilariously chipmunk-y. I'm still going to experiment, but now I know it's not something you can sit down and do in 5 minutes.
In summary, much respect to those of you who produce quality nightcores. For now, I shall continue to listen and refrain from contributing.

[Kirby]

The actual process of Nightcoring a song is in itself very easy, and if you're not speaking in a figurative sense, it is nothing more than raising the pitch and tempo. Finding the correct values for pitch and tempo isn't hard either, it's a very limited range.
However, none of us are saying that Nightcore isn't an art because it is easy. May I quote from my thread:

C: Nightcore sucks! It's made using an extremely cheap method and demonstrates NO talent. Anyone can do it!

A: The reason why songs are remade in the Nightcore style is because people believe that they sound better that way. It's purely for listening pleasure, and in my opinion, this is all that should matter. Furthermore, just because everyone can do it doesn't mean that everyone can do it well. Certain songs sound good in the Nightcore style, while others don't. This is why some Nightcore uploaders are more popular than others.

Those who insist that Nightcore is "talentless" or "easy" should try creating/popularizing their own Nightcore channel. Utilizing this logic, each Nightcore uploader should be receiving the same attention/acclaim for what they do. Clearly, this isn't the case. If you provide songs that have not been improved by a Nightcore edit, you will not get far.

If you like a song, why would you care about the methods used to produce it? If it makes the song sound better, why does it matter if it's easy to do? You may think that Nightcore makes all songs sound worse, but that is a mere opinion; considering the popularity several Nightcore videos have gotten compared to their originals, many people do not feel the same way.

The simplicity of Nightcore edits is where the beauty of Nightcore comes from; anyone with good taste can create unique songs that appeal to a wide audience with little producing knowledge.

[Gls]

The actual process of Nightcoring a song is in itself very easy, and if you're not speaking in a figurative sense, it is nothing more than raising the pitch and tempo. Finding the correct values for pitch and tempo isn't hard either, it's a very limited range.
However, none of us are saying that Nightcore isn't an art because it is easy. May I quote from my thread:

Yes it's easy. However, finding a good song to nightcore is a bit hard for me. Yeah, I agreed with what Maikel said.

First, find a song that would sound good in Nightcore style. This is actually the hardest part of this tutorial. Many people tried but failed, when making Nightcore songs. So.. Be prepared to spend a long time searching for Nightcoreable songs. Look for slow, electronic-based songs with female vocals! These are usually the best choices.

[ozias22882]

Hi i'm new.
Thanks Maikel631 for tutorial

[StereoT]

Hey this is the first time this has happened when i used wave pad with a song but when i edit it then save it and re open it the song sounds dampened but i didnt dampen it anyone know what went wrong?

[appler]

Hey this is the first time this has happened when i used wave pad with a song but when i edit it then save it and re open it the song sounds dampened but i didnt dampen it anyone know what went wrong?

What did you save as(mp3, flac) as it may be a compressing error. If you send me the song ill see if i can fix it for you if you like.

[jd-Fairo]

hola soy nuevo en este foro me gustan tus canciones de nightcore probare los tutoriales gracias

Hello, I'm new to this forum and I like that your Nightcores proves what have been said in these tutorials

RC edit: That's very nice of you, but you should not be using any otehr language than English on the forum unless accompained with a translation. You may use Google Translate if you need so. The posting of the original message is of course a way to limit drama since translations will sometimes (often) be sloppy.

Eso está muy bien de usted, pero usted no debe utilizar un idioma distinto del Inglés en el foro a menos que acompañado de una traducción. Usted puede usar Google Translate si necesita hacerlo. La publicación del mensaje original es, por supuesto, una manera de limitar el drama desde traducciones a veces (a menudo) ser descuidado

[RaveComing]

Hey this is the first time this has happened when i used wave pad with a song but when i edit it then save it and re open it the song sounds dampened but i didnt dampen it anyone know what went wrong?

Welcome to the cold world of lossy transcodes.

• 1. Thou shalt convert a mp3 to another, lest you hear a clear deviance
  2. Thou shalt get mad at lossy formats
  3. Thou shalt learn to value of our Lord FLAC
  4. Thou shalt learn of the Holy Trinity of Losslessness
  5. Thou shalt call the Head PCM, the Body FLAC and the various extensions WAV
  6. Thou shalt rage at lossy formats once more
  7. Thou shalt roam the seven seas of the interweb to share to good news
  8. Thou shalt honor our Lord and mention Its name in every thread worthy of It
  9. Thou shalt educate the uneducated
  X. Thou shalt never again praise any lossy format

But really, I'm thinking you used a mp3 file to nightcore, right? And there's also the fact that Wavepad as a whole is crappy when it comes to nightcorering UNLESS you only play with "Speed".

[EvokerN]

Could we use FL Studio to make Nightcore song? Because that's the only software I've found so far that can add drum beats etc. I wanna try go all out :3

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

I just registered to say that there's a way in Audacity to losslessly speed up or slow down audio. Instead of using anything in the "Effect" menu, use the "Set Rate" function instead as described here:
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Chang ... h_together


SET RATE & QUALITY
You'll want a sampling rate that is a relatively low multiple of your target's playback rate. For the most part, depending on how OCD you're feeling, you'll want to use multiples of:

• 1000 (mellow);　2000 (normal);　8000 (paranoid)

For example, 56000Hz is a multiple of 8000 and therefore should provide very high quality. I've also found it to be a good starting point for Nightcore-ing a song in general.

REQUIRED FOR PRESERVING LOSSLESS-NESS

• - The source format the original song is in MUST be lossless
  - Make sure your "Project Rate" is the same as what you set for "Set Rate"
  - If you've made no other edits and are re-exporting a 16bit song as 16bit, make sure in
  Edit -> Preferences -> Quality under High-quality Conversion that "Dither" is set to "None".

EXAMPLE (currently outdated, will be updated)

• 1) Aquire the song "Naraku no Hana" by Shimamiya Eiko (used as the OP for the Higurashi Kai anime)
  2) In Audacity, "Set Rate" to 56000Hz
  3) ??? (click the play button)
  4) Profit by having recreated this: http://youtu.be/O0frf7fxSF4

BENEFITS

• 1. If your sound card supports 96KHz or higher, you'll be able to preserve those higher frequencies that would have been lost with forcing the traditional "pitch adjust" to work within 44.1KHz.
  2. For resampling in post-production (like for a CD), Audacity's resampler is actually kind of crappy. This way you instead can use an uber external resampler like SoX or PPHS @ "Ultra Mode".
  3. YouTube keeps the original uploaded file for future-proofing, so just upload the original un-resampled version and let them take care of the rest.

If anyone's wondering, I learned this method from converting Nintendo 64 songs from USF data rips; for whatever reason they use some "slightly off-standard" sampling rates like 22047Hz and 32006Hz.

[Qoolioz]

Can you make a tutorial for Virtual DJ? I heard from a lot of people saying Virtual DJ is better.

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

Not to brag, but if you use the method I described, it doesn't matter what program you use, since it's a lossless edit anyway. The only part that matters quality-wise is the quality of the resampler of your sound card, your media player, or YouTube's.

If it was too technical or hard to understand, I can put together a really simple-to-follow guide or something.


(you know what, I think I'll actually go test YouTube's resampler quality)

[RaveComing]

A bunch of useless comments

All of what you said is very nice, except you're creating some sexy transcodes unless your source file is lossless. Transcodes kill you at night. To my knowledge, there's only a handful of programs which can perform lossless edits on lossy formats and then, said programs can only play with some meta data and cannot work with the file itself as it would need to uncompress it to PCM (Transcodes!). Also, there's no need to save a CD-sourced file at over 44.1khz since the CD is pre-sampled at 44.1khz. A vinyl can hit up to 99.6khz. The applying of a dither is only for viable for 24bit source files (unless you wish to create some cool 8bits track). 24bit files are gathered from a vinyl or via web. There is no such thing as a real 25+bit track unless since the human ear cannot hear over 99.6khz which is the max sample rate for a 24bits track. A 25+bit Mastering would thus be equal to that of a 24bit. By any mean, I would recommend agaisnt dithering as it makes a lossless file lose info (a dithered file may not regain lost data.) Also, there's no such thing as a "High Quality Dither". The system (unless you're using a crappy system/program) is Dither Xbits>YBits Triangular/Rectangular. Always pick triangle, it's cooler and sounds better. And please, never make usage of Variable Dither rates, it makes me sad and is totally useless.

Also, 55.6khz is an awful number, keep to 44.1; 44.8 and 99.6 (or 22.05 if you like 8bits)

I'm a pony, so I know what I'm talking about.

[Kirby]

I'm a pony, so I know what I'm talking about.

But you're not Vinyl

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

a bunch of stuff

I don't really want to break it to you, but Rainbow Dash isn't exactly the smartest Pony in Ponyville...

Anyway, you mean to tell me you guys are making these edits WITHOUT lossless sources? The method I described is only meant for lossless sources, so no wonder what I said made no sense to you. But to your credit, I didn't actually specify a lossless source, so I at least thank you for mentioning that; I've added it to the "lossless requirements" list.

Also, it seems that you missed the part where you're supposed to resample outside of Audacity. Nobody is expected to play 56KHz files natively - you're supposed to resample it in real time via something like Foobar2000 or your sound card (assuming it's a quality one), or in post production if it's going on a CD. YouTube will resample things themselves, so there's no point to re-sample something before uploading and ruin future-proofing.

Thirdly, dithering? Like I said, L-O-S-S-L-E-S-S. My method avoids that completely since you're not actually editing the waveform, but just making it play back faster. Heck I even did SHA-1 comparison between the original song re-saved as LPCM WAV and the nightcore version slowed back down to 44.1KHz (both saved with Audacity as 16bit with no dithering). I got EXACTLY THE SAME HASH.

Oh, and no offense, but it really does make you look bad if you can't even get the standard sampling rates correct. :/ It's not 44.8KHz and 99.6KHz - it's 48KHz and 96KHz, which go with all the other rates that are multiples of 8000 (8KHz, 16KHz, 24KHz, 32Khz, etc.). This is important because 56KHz (not 55.6KHz) is also a multiple of 8000.

Speaking of which, 22,5Hz isn't just for 8-bit - many 2nd and 3rd party games on the Nintendo 64 use 22047KHz (GoldenEye 007 probably being the most famous).


And really, bold text for your whole post? Isn't that borderline-spamming?


EDIT: I re-written the "Benefits" section in an attempt to clarify why that method is better.

[RaveComing]

Speaking of which, 22,5Hz isn't just for 8-bit - many 2nd and 3rd party games on the Nintendo 64 use 22047KHz (GoldenEye 007 probably being the most famous).

22047khz is the best multiple of 8 ever. Also, I do admit I should have written 96 and 48, although to my defence I was sleepy as heck yesterday night.

The thing is, I do lossless edits, but I think only 2-3 persons outside of you and me on this forum would understand your text anyway for the simple fact that they transcode mp3 either 3 or 4 times before it gets a play on Youtube.

And really, bold text for your whole post? Isn't that borderline-spamming?

I've been using bold text for months now and do not plan upon changing it

I'm a pony, so I know what I'm talking about.

But you're not Vinyl

True, but RIppy sent me here

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

The thing is, I do lossless edits, but I think only 2-3 persons outside of you and me on this forum would understand your text anyway for the simple fact that they transcode mp3 either 3 or 4 times before it gets a play on Youtube.

Then would it be too much to mention in the guide that you save to a lossless format, and list several popular common formats as well? And a quick note that "the higher quality the source format is, the better" couldn't hurt, could it?

Or do I just still have too much faith in humanity?


Anyway, the "Set Rate" thing does actually work on lossy sources as well, but the lossless factor is completely negated obviously. The only benefits would be avoiding Audacity's resampler, that is you could still just upload the resulting audio directly to YouTube.


EDIT: I just stress-tested YouTube's resampler with a 52189Hz Nightcore clip and it turns out that it's a bit worse than Foobar2000's PPHS @ ultra mode. However, seeing how I intentionally chose a mathematically insane sample rate, it's likely that typical multiple-of-2000 ones would be fine.

[RaveComing]

Or do I just still have too much faith in humanity?

This, and I'm 100% cereal. Only a few of us have access to an unlimited amount of lossless music for free. The majority of the community would not buy lossless tracks and even if they did, they would not here the difference and know how to manipulate them (true story).

People who really want to invest time into making lossless nightcore can PM me and I will kindly answer them and answer their every question; but these persons need to either have access to the track they want in lossless (FLAC, WAV, PCM, ALAC, APE and TTA are the most used/popular formats) or be willing to buy their music.

So ya, the community here is into lossy transcodes and no matter how hard you'll try you will not change that fact, for said community mainly hails from Youtube. And boy, Youtube is fucking audio quality serious, right? Not.

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

And boy, Youtube is fucking audio quality serious, right? Not.

Somebody hasn't listened to YouTube's 720p & 1080p WebM formats. 192kbps vorbis says hi.

Yes it's still lossy, but that's arguably even higher quality than Amazon's 256kbps MP3 store.

[RaveComing]

Vorbis is worth shit if it's CBR; you need to use log to make it worthwhile. Well, in anycase a 192CBR Vorbis > 256 MP3 with Lame, but then Vorbis q5 does thet exact same job for less space. And youtube is also a transcode.

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

Um... actually they AREN'T using CBR. You can see this by downloading a WebM file from YouTube, opening it in Foobar2000, and looking at the bitrate. 99% of the time it'll stay over 200kbps. AFAIK, you can't even MAKE CBR vorbis - hence why you only get the Q# option in something like Audacity. Also if you view the bitrate of an OGG made with Audacity with something like MediaInfo, it WILL report back a single value - like it'll say 192kbps for Q6.

Also, YouTube uses Q6. not Q5.

And even if it is a transcode, Q6 from lossless is really quite good. I know some professionally-made media-rich products that even use that quality (specifically the Fate/stay night visual novel).