# BFD/AVR/Audyssey trim levels



## thaddeussmith (Dec 14, 2011)

I understand that you need to reduce the LFE trim levels in order not max out the BFD inputs, generally accepted to be around -12. I also understand that when setting up Audyssey you want to have amp levels set so that your LFE trim level is within +/- 3. Additionally, altering this trim level after Audyssey has set it will cause some issues with the overall filtering, time delays, etc.

So when combining the two technologies, who wins, and in which order?


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

thaddeussmith said:


> I understand that you need to reduce the LFE trim levels in order not max out the BFD inputs, generally accepted to be around -12. I also understand that when setting up Audyssey you want to have amp levels set so that your LFE trim level is within +/- 3. Additionally, altering this trim level after Audyssey has set it will cause some issues with the overall filtering, time delays, etc.
> 
> So when combining the two technologies, who wins, and in which order?


I couldn't keep my LFE trim low enough for my BFD, so I had to change from -10 dBV to +4 dBu. I don't like trims being too close to -15 or +15 - since they're both extremes.

There isn't really too much concern about how much you change the trim levels - as long as all the speakers are level matched. Speakers could be at 0, and the sub can be at whatever level is needed - as long as SPL still matches.

It will have no impact on time delays -- and shouldn't really have any impact on filtering either.


----------



## thaddeussmith (Dec 14, 2011)

Doh, you're right. I just went back and quickly re-read the Audyssey guide on AVSF and it's the sub distance measurement that you don't want to mess with after running the calibration.

So part 2 of the question, since I see conflicting opinions depending on the year and forum: run BFD first and THEN Audyssey, or the other way around?


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

I would recommend Audyssey then BFD.

If you use BFD, then run Audyssey, Audyssey will then do all EQing based on the BFD.


----------



## thaddeussmith (Dec 14, 2011)

groovy, thanks. by virtue of responding to this thread, you've authorized me to PM you with further questions/help when I start to dig into this over the next couple months.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Sure thing! I'm subscribed to the thread too - so if you have questions and post them here, I'm sure others can learn too!

I'll do my best to respond.


----------



## thaddeussmith (Dec 14, 2011)

awesome, thank you. Audyssey MultiEQ XT is doing a good job, but i KNOW that there are some areas which need additional tweaking. Mixing of manual + automatic EQ/DSP systems is proving to be confusing.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> I would recommend Audyssey then BFD.


I would recommend running BFD first, if you must use it at all.



> If you use BFD, then run Audyssey, Audyssey will then do all EQing based on the BFD.


As it should since it is upstream.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Kal Rubinson said:


> I would recommend running BFD first, if you must use it at all.
> 
> As it should since it is upstream.


It depends on what you want to achieve. BFD then Audyssey only makes sense if you want a flat FR - which isn't always the end goal. And even if you do BFD then Audyssey - you then lose the ability to easily tweak it. Everything is great if Audyssey works well - but that doesn't always happen.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> It depends on what you want to achieve. BFD then Audyssey only makes sense if you want a flat FR - which isn't always the end goal. And even if you do BFD then Audyssey - you then lose the ability to easily tweak it. Everything is great if Audyssey works well - but that doesn't always happen.


Right you are!! I presume a flat FR and minimizing room modes is the goal and that Audyssey works as it has for me. Tweaking, of course, is another story. (I use AudysseyPro for that, if at all.)


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Kal Rubinson said:


> Right you are!! I presume a flat FR and minimizing room modes is the goal and that Audyssey works as it has for me. Tweaking, of course, is another story. (I use AudysseyPro for that, if at all.)


I love Audysssey Pro for tweaking! I'm probably going to go back to a flat FR next time I re-EQ. I found that I loved a slight curve... but I'm always conflicted about "Accuracy" vs "preference"


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

Zeitgeist said:


> I love Audysssey Pro for tweaking! I'm probably going to go back to a flat FR next time I re-EQ. I found that I loved a slight curve... but I'm always conflicted about "Accuracy" vs "preference"


There's no conflict as long as one understands and appreciates the difference.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Kal Rubinson said:


> There's no conflict as long as one understands and appreciates the difference.


I understand... Appreciate your comments. :reading:


----------

