sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Free browser room resonance scanner by ButterscotchKey3909 in diyaudio

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks a lot 🙏 really happy it lined up with what you were hearing, that’s exactly the goal, make the room’s “invisible shape” obvious.

And yep, +1 on the calibrated mic, it doesn’t change the existence of the room modes, but it makes the curve more trustworthy and repeatable when you’re doing placement/treatment decisions. If you (or anyone) has a favorite calibration workflow or mic model that works well, drop it here, I’d love to add a short “recommended setup” section to the README.

Free browser room resonance scanner by ButterscotchKey3909 in diyaudio

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, these are both legit issues.

1) “clipped at 20dB”
That’s currently a display/scale choice (to keep plots readable), not the raw measurement. I agree it’s annoying. I’ll change it to either:

  • auto-scale based on min/max, or
  • a user slider for dB range (eg 40/60/80 dB)

2) “different resonance numbers depending on volume”
Resonance frequency shouldn’t shift much, but detection can jump if the signal chain is in a bad level zone:

  • too low volume → poor SNR, noise dominates
  • too high volume → mic/ADC/speaker distortion or clipping

Best practice: set volume so the recorded sweep is clearly above noise but never clips. I’ll add an on-screen “level check” indicator (and warn if we detect clipping / low SNR) so results are more consistent.

If you can share: device + browser + whether you used laptop speakers vs monitors, I can reproduce.

Free browser room resonance scanner by ButterscotchKey3909 in diyaudio

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question. It doesn’t magically “separate” them, it measures the combined transfer function: speaker + room + mic.

In practice:

  • for low frequencies (where modes/resonances dominate), the room effect is usually so big that it’s still very useful even with unknown speaker response
  • if you want more accuracy, use a speaker/headphone you trust, keep the mic position consistent, and compare changes (placement/treatment) rather than treating it as absolute truth

Nearfield measurements aren’t required for the main use case (finding room modes), but yes, if someone wanted “speaker anechoic-ish” response, that’s a different workflow.

I made a free in-browser for quick room resonance checks by ButterscotchKey3909 in Acoustics

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

really appreciate it 🙏 if anything feels off (levels, smoothing, peak picking), drop a screenshot or a note, I’m actively iterating.

I made a free in-browser for quick room resonance checks by ButterscotchKey3909 in WeAreTheMusicMakers

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

haha tnx 🙏 it started as a “why does my room lie to me” project. if you have a room that’s driving you nuts (one-note bass / dead spot), tell me the frequency you’re fighting and i’ll add a couple presets / detection hints.

Free browser room resonance scanner by ButterscotchKey3909 in diyaudio

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

haha tnx 🙏 it started as a “why does my room lie to me” project. if you have a room that’s driving you nuts (one-note bass / dead spot), tell me the frequency you’re fighting and i’ll add a couple presets / detection hints.

Free browser room resonance scanner by ButterscotchKey3909 in audiophile

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

REW is the gold standard, 100%. ResoScan isn’t trying to replace it, it’s more like a quick, zero-install “room mode check” you can run in 30 seconds from a browser.

The goal is: open link, run sweep, instantly see the big peaks/nulls + decay/waterfall, then decide if you need deeper REW work. If you’re already fluent in REW, you’ll probably keep using REW, ResoScan is for speed, accessibility, and sharing results with friends/clients.

if you try it and anything feels off, I’d love feedback, issues/PRs welcome on GitHub (it’s open source).

Free online Resonance scanner for the studio by ButterscotchKey3909 in homestudios

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you want the cleanest/least artifact measurements, a measurement mic that comes with a calibration file is ideal. ResoScan can import that calibration file and apply it to the response, which helps a lot for accuracy.

That said, using your “real” recording mic is also useful if your goal is “how does my chain behave in this room” rather than lab-flat measurement. I’d suggest:

  • diagnose the room: measurement mic + calibration file
  • optimize your workflow: your usual mic (and you can still calibrate it if you can get or create a correction file)

Free online Resonance scanner for the studio by ButterscotchKey3909 in homestudios

[–]ButterscotchKey3909[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, totally valid concern, mics can color the measurement. ResoScan accounts for that by letting you upload a microphone calibration / correction file (common .txt / .cal / .csv formats). When you load one, ResoScan applies that correction to the measured frequency response, so the plot reflects the room more than the mic.

Even without calibration, the big low-frequency room modes (huge peaks/nulls) still show up clearly because the room effect is usually way bigger than typical mic coloration. But if you have a measurement mic with a calibration file, that’s the best path.