[jcx]

Transducers aren't perfect, I believe Senn touted 1 dB R/L driver matching for the HD650 - implying that was bragging rights good for, at the time, fairly high end headphones.
 
Given transducer variability, and that amplitude matching R/L is critical to "phantom center", "sound stage", then its reasonable to think you may have a legitimate need for a balance control.
 
In Loudspeaker/Room Stereo, "two channel" audio, balance controls are used to try and compensate for poor speaker placement/listening position geometry to try and put the "phantom center" in front of the listener.  Balance control alone isn't the best tool for this, can't fix everything, but are able to give some improvement, sometimes.
 
 
The "no knobs/no adjuctements", "buy a different amp if you don't like this one" is a bit of high end audio pretension that has diffused throughout the industry.  Of course too many knobs means more opportunities to set them wrong, and few users are going to be have the skill or patience to use test signals to properly set them for their ears, transducers.

 

[MWSVette]

   
So basically it wouldn't be used by 99% of the Schiit's clientele, what gives?

Cool,  I am finally in the 1% of something....

 

[FrivolsListener]

   
Fulla? Ragnarok? What Schiit does seem to have is an ironclad one-knob-per-box rule.

 
Fulla, IMO, is a niche piece for a big niche.  I bought two Fullas.  One gets used when I carry my work laptop into the lab.  Even modi/magni are too awkward to carry around with a laptop.  My other Fulla is not at work but available for portable computing and listening wherever.
 
Raggy is an amplifier, as opposed to a headphone amplifier.  What I would say about Raggy and Yggy and Gumby is that they most certainly aren't simple, so KISS, mentioned upthread, doesn't apply there.  But they arguably are one-function boxes.

 

[eke2k6]

  2016, Chapter 9:
The Elephant in the Room
 
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

 
 
Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done to reverse the trend. And the pace of audio inflation has picked up exponentially.
 
My poison of choice is portable audio. When I started the hobby, the flagship iems were the JVC FX700, the Vsonic GR-07, and the IE80. In terms of innovation, the GR-07 utilized a diaphragm made of layers of biocellulose grown from actual bacteria in a lab. The FX700 used actual wood in its construction, as well as in the diaphragm to give it the rich sound it was known for. The GR-07 cost $150 at the time, and the FX700 was an eye watering $350. This was in 2011. The GR07's design gave it a timbre that I still haven't heard an equal of today. 
 
Since then the flagships have jumped to an average of $1,000 to $3,000. The performance is better, yes. However, not enough to justify the insane increases in margins.
 
Astell and Kern released the AK240 at $2400 when the nearest DAPs cost $800-$900. I have the device in my hand right now, and it is a sharp-edged block of metal with a sub-par screen even for the time. I cannot fathom why this thing cost so much. Then there's the sound, which I honestly say is no better than a Sansa Clip+ (which is a beautiful sounding device). I've since had the AK320 (supposedly identical sounding to the AK380), and my sound assessment is the same. For driving portable headphones and earphones, these devices have zero advantage over an iPhone playing high quality well mastered files.
 
The reason the prices continue to skyrocket is because our hobby is afflicted with the same disease that affected the characters in the ancient story of The Emperor's New Clothes, where a dissenting opinion is met with snark and assumptions of inferior listening ability. Furthermore, around these parts a discussion of price tends to be shut down very quickly. Unlike most other hobbies where you can see tangible changes as you go from product to product, audio depends ENTIRELY on the impressions of other listeners. These listeners more often than not have wildly varying preferences, varying auditory function, and some have ulterior motives when talking about a piece of gear.
 
This is what has ultimately left me disenchanted with the hobby. I still have my audio gear, but I''ve moved on to photography. It's no less expensive, but I can at least see where my money is going without being met with disappointment when I open and evaluate the gear for the first time.

 

[aamefford]

I personally don't need or want a display. Had one on my HA-1. It was really cool. I never used it....

 

[45longcolt]

If you have a dedicated listening room with nothing else in it, no architectural anomalies, and your Eames chair in the sweet spot; if your ears are perfectly synched and all your recordings were done by perfectionists; well, then you have no need for a balance control. And I will try not to be envious. For the rest of us...
 
I wonder if channel balance could be performed by the microprocessor, accessed via the remote. Just a thought.

 

[rmoody]

Weren't the first TV remotes ultrasonic?

Yes. I distinctly recall my aunt had a TV with a remote in the late 80's and it was ultrasonic. I can still recall being able to hear the remote on certain functions. Oh, the hearing of youth.  I believe it was an RCA, but again, that was decades ago. Oh, the memory of youth.
 
It actually worked well, no line of sight issues. It was huge however.

 

[valiant66]

  Never in my life I had to use any sort of balance control. Could someone explain the utility of it?

Many rooms are asymmetrical, or the WAF requires setup where one speaker is closer to the sidewall than the other. Or there's a door on one side of the room but not the other. Or the mastering was a bit off, or the pressing was a bit hinky, or you always preferred stage right at concerts so you blew out one ear slightly more than another. The FM signal is not perfectly locked on. One of the connecting cables slipped through QC and has a different resistance than it should. The chances that most rigs are actually purely perfectly stereo centered in the first place are vanishingly small.
 
Dropping the balance control was a hi-end snobbery thing - "Oh, our signal is so pure we don't want to route it through anything unnecessary like balance or *gasp* tone controls." Maybe they were right, but dropping balance was going too far, IMO. However...
 
A balance control that isn't remoted isn't much use because you can't adjust it from the listening position. And most digital balance controls have steps that are so gross they're of little use for finessing. A highly accurate motorized balance control is expensive. And everybody is going to DSP anyway, so why bother?
 
I had (have, but don't currently use) a Meitner PA-6 preamp. It had a long umbilical cord instead of a wireless remote, which meant you had a lovely hunk of wood to hold with analogue controls on it. An interesting feature was that the balance control did not have a centre detent, so no 'click' to say you're in the middle. I used to amuse myself by closing my eyes while listening and finessing the balance by ear, then opening them to see where the dial was at. It would be in a different place, album to album, and sometimes even track to track within an album. That alone proved the value of a high-accuracy balance control to me. But that remote was an anomaly, Ed Meitner does things his own way. 
 
Personally, I think a good quality accurate remote operated balance control offers enough value that it outweighs any possible signal degradation it may introduce. I am, however, not aware of any stereo gear (sorry, "2-channel" gear) that includes it any longer. It would be great if Schiit included one, but I'm not holding my breath. What would be interesting, in light of the revelation that the upcoming power amp is pretty much dual-mono, would be if Jason put a balance tweaker in the power amp instead of the preamp. Maybe 5% adjustment in each channel rather than full-to-off? Again, highly unlikely, but imagine the fuss if it reintroduced the concept of balance to TAS and Stereophile…
 
Disclosure: my desktop receiver, an Advent 400, has both tone and balance controls within arm's reach. I use one or both most days while listening...

 

[US Blues]

  Never in my life I had to use any sort of balance control. Could someone explain the utility of it?

I have 1000's of hours of Grateful Dead recordings, mixed live to two-track in the field, and the stereo field is not always centered. I need to hear Jerry right and proper. Thanks for asking!

 

[landroni]

  Raggy is an amplifier, as opposed to a headphone amplifier.  What I would say about Raggy and Yggy and Gumby is that they most certainly aren't simple, so KISS, mentioned upthread, doesn't apply there.  But they arguably are one-function boxes.

Here's Stereophile's initial assessment on Ragnarok:
"The Ragnarok is a stripped-down, all-analog amp: It has no DAC, no Bluetooth, no phono stage, no mute button, and (thank the Norse gods) no farkakte LED display. Best of all: no menu or remote control! The Scandinavian-styled front panel exhibits only the most barely discernible markings and some tiny white lights. "
[...]
"Uniquely, the Ragnarok makes no accommodations for sitting on your couch with a remote control and a brandy snifter. If you want to change the volume or select a different source, you must get physical: You must get up onto your feet and actually touch the warm body of a Scandinavian god-slayer."

 
Personally I'd argue that one-function boxes are largely consistent with the KISS approach...

 

[FrivolsListener]

 
Here's Stereophile's initial assessment on Ragnarok:
"The Ragnarok is a stripped-down, all-analog amp: It has no DAC, no Bluetooth, no phono stage, no mute button, and (thank the Norse gods) no farkakte LED display. Best of all: no menu or remote control! The Scandinavian-styled front panel exhibits only the most barely discernible markings and some tiny white lights. "
[...]
"Uniquely, the Ragnarok makes no accommodations for sitting on your couch with a remote control and a brandy snifter. If you want to change the volume or select a different source, you must get physical: You must get up onto your feet and actually touch the warm body of a Scandinavian god-slayer."

 
Personally I'd argue that one-function boxes are largely consistent with the KISS approach...

 
Except for,  y'know, the microprocessor adjusting the bias 1000 times a second, and the encoder that switches in resistor pads by relay masquerading as a volume control, yes.

 

[landroni]

  Except for,  y'know, the microprocessor adjusting the bias 1000 times a second, and the encoder that switches in resistor pads by relay masquerading as a volume control, yes.

Fair point. But hey: you don't have an integrated 2 bucks DAC for playback, flashy neon lights or assorted VU meter displays, a yearly subscription to Tidal, HDDtracks discounts and MQA certification, as well as an integrated phono stage... Hopefully Schiit's wares don't go the way of the Xbox One, where you can browse the web and order pizza.

 

[manpowre]

 
Yes. I distinctly recall my aunt had a TV with a remote in the late 80's and it was ultrasonic. I can still recall being able to hear the remote on certain functions. Oh, the hearing of youth.  I believe it was an RCA, but again, that was decades ago. Oh, the memory of youth.
 
It actually worked well, no line of sight issues. It was huge however.

But you probably didnt have the quality of soundstage as we do have today even with the cheapest DACs from eg Schiit !! back in the 70's and 80's ! even with ultrasonic remote control! )))))
 
I remember my parents in the early 90's got a brand new TV with stereo loudspeakers on the side of the TV instead of mono loudspeakers as most tvs had in the 80's, and we started playing from it, and it was like the TV was bonching together with the music!!! ohh youth.. but, were chasing the dream, until you get to the level where the sound is exceptional, and then we lay back a few years, wait for the next big thing, and go again on the purchase stream!

 

[Gimpinchair]

Yes. I distinctly recall my aunt had a TV with a remote in the late 80's and it was ultrasonic. I can still recall being able to hear the remote on certain functions. Oh, the hearing of youth.  I believe it was an RCA, but again, that was decades ago. Oh, the memory of youth.

It actually worked well, no line of sight issues. It was huge however.

I remember my families first remotely controlled tv. It, too, had an ultrasonic remote and if you had yhe right combination of keys on your keyring you could change channels. It was quite fun on Sunday afternoon watching football. Dad loved it when you changed the channel when a critical play was about to be made.

 

[jimmers]

  ... and it was like the TV was bonching together with the music!!!...

I looked up "bonching" to see if it was a thing, and I now wish I hadn't.