I posted this question a few years back, but only received one reply.
I'm almost ready to finalize a preamp design, but I'm not sure I want to include a balance control for the simple reason that I've never actually used it for anything but troubleshooting. I don't have any recordings that seem "unbalanced", so I never feel compelled to ever use it. I believe it was useful in the past when channel balance was often a problem due to loose tolerance components. Does anyone here ever use the balance control, and if so why or when?
Mike
I'm almost ready to finalize a preamp design, but I'm not sure I want to include a balance control for the simple reason that I've never actually used it for anything but troubleshooting. I don't have any recordings that seem "unbalanced", so I never feel compelled to ever use it. I believe it was useful in the past when channel balance was often a problem due to loose tolerance components. Does anyone here ever use the balance control, and if so why or when?
Mike
No I do not use a balance control, particularly one involving passing audio signals through a potentiometer
IMO you are just adding further distance from hearing music, as it should be.
Rather if i need to ,which is very rare ( ie not touched in the last 5 years) I can adjust anode current with a 2k trim to favor left or right LDR
IMO you are just adding further distance from hearing music, as it should be.
Rather if i need to ,which is very rare ( ie not touched in the last 5 years) I can adjust anode current with a 2k trim to favor left or right LDR
I haven't ever found it useful other than for troubleshooting, assuming a decent tracking volume control.
Not disagreeing with you at all...but why do you feel the need to have one again?
Mike
Yeah, I can see how an imbalance in a head set would be disturbing. I haven't used phones ever since I bought a house 30-some years ago, no neighbors that I can pi$$-off anymore.
Mike
Last edited:
I was experimenting with the crossovers on a pair of the speakers in my man cave yesterday. Using a mono source, I turned the balance control to pan between the modified speaker and the unmodified one to help me compare the difference in the way they sounded. A handy option to have I think.
The balance control is also useful if one is temporarily unable to sit midway between one's speakers - perhaps when the cat has made itself comfortable in the hot spot!
The balance control is also useful if one is temporarily unable to sit midway between one's speakers - perhaps when the cat has made itself comfortable in the hot spot!
Had to get rid of the cat for that very reason.
I'm strongly leaning towards no balance control simply because I never use it for anything but troubleshooting, and I haven't had any trouble for years. I was just wondering if anyone would have any reason that could change my mind.
Mike
This is what I have done for a couple reasons.
More than once I’ve measured both channels while sweeping a stereo pot and found inconsistency throughout its range and overall between the channels. Choosing to use dual mono pots or even choosing which channels to use from a pair of stereo pots was a better option for me.
I also have a listening area that is asymmetrical and flanked on one side by a book case that I feel affects the imaging on certain recordings.
Some recordings I have just don’t stage the way I want them to in my main system or other systems I’ve listened to them on.
My little contraption for TV uses PGA2311 variable gain ICs that have 1/2 dB increments. "Balance" is just a constant offset from the Arduino controller. As you run volume up/down it just stops whichever channel is already maxed (or minned) out. Nothing else is in the signal chain it but performs the function. I sometimes run a 2-4 dB increase on the center channel for dialog. A few shows have excessive LF content so backing off the subwoofer channel helps.
G²
Many people haven’t had a fire for years yet still keep a fire extinguisher. You never know when you might be cursing yourself for not.
I have a speaker that is closer to a side wall temporarily and I find that balance control is useful to compensate. Not the most Hifi solution but as I said temporary appeasement.
I would say depends on your sources, your topology and if you are using DSP.
I’d insist on a remote before a balance control.
For LPs I like balance and tone controls along with a subsonic filter.
Tune preamps I also like balance controls.
If you are using computer only, no need.
If you are using an arduino or pga based design then why not it’s just code.
If I was to be going through the trouble of designing my own preamp for as many years as you indicated I’d want it to be useful for all possible use cases, including troubleshooting.
You can integrate a defeat for tone and balance. Besides cost I don’t see why one wouldn’t.
If you do integrate balance I’d advocate what others have said- dual mono.
I use dual mono ladder attenuators and don’t see myself going back.
Last edited:
Balance is a must for me because almost always we'll have to deal with many summed up channel gain deviations, starting right at the recording and ending at acoustic symmetry of the room. +-3dB is likely more than would ever be needed and it doesn't need to be true balance in terms of transfer characteristic. A simple gain trim for one of the channels is enough and that is much easier to implement than a true balance.
Personally, in an analog setup, I also find it useful have tone controls and mono switch.
Personally, in an analog setup, I also find it useful have tone controls and mono switch.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.