I use the balance control. I don't know of a single setup where I thought the balance was so perfect that use of a balance control would not be of help.
It is quite surprising how noticeable even a small shift in balance can be perceived. I have (now a back up preamp) a Levinson No. 32 that allows balance and volume to be changed in .1 db! increments. It is impossible to reliably hear a .5 db change in volume with musical material, but it is quite easy to hear a .3 db shift in balance.
If the balance control is achieved by sending the signal through another set of potentiometers, then the control, at least in theory, degrades the signal. But, if the control is like that of the Levinson, a microprocessor is simply controlling the volume control resistor ladder to achieve balance control so the signal is no more degraded than it is by having a volume control.
My current linestage, an Emotive Audio Epifania, allows for microprocessor control of a resistor ladder to achieve balance control, but not in as fine increments as the Levinson. Good thing it sounds better than the Levinson.
It is quite surprising how noticeable even a small shift in balance can be perceived. I have (now a back up preamp) a Levinson No. 32 that allows balance and volume to be changed in .1 db! increments. It is impossible to reliably hear a .5 db change in volume with musical material, but it is quite easy to hear a .3 db shift in balance.
If the balance control is achieved by sending the signal through another set of potentiometers, then the control, at least in theory, degrades the signal. But, if the control is like that of the Levinson, a microprocessor is simply controlling the volume control resistor ladder to achieve balance control so the signal is no more degraded than it is by having a volume control.
My current linestage, an Emotive Audio Epifania, allows for microprocessor control of a resistor ladder to achieve balance control, but not in as fine increments as the Levinson. Good thing it sounds better than the Levinson.