Read my last post again about why this is a problem, and no, it doesn't work.
You missed something here too. Our hearing tests always run in parallel with complex measurements and must lead to the same results. In this case, the measurements were done by engineers, to whom developers, industry and universities go when problems with measurements arise. In this case it was necessary and expensive, but fruitful.
With equivalent amplifiers, the rise time for Balanced is always half that of SE. Each amplifier branch only has to perform half the power and half the voltage swing, and since this happens in both amplifiers at the same time, the rise time is only half as long as with SE. If you develop a more complex amplifier, this would again have the advantages if it were used for balanced amplification. And no matter how complex the amplifier is, the components and the additional board space for the second branch are not expensive.
No matter how, you have (almost) all of my information on the subject, and you can also imagine why I have equipped all of my normal devices with symmetrical inputs and outputs and deliberately forego symmetrical small signal processing. Except for the directly necessary one in front of real symmetrical power amplifiers.
I had long planned to convert the completely symmetrical Singxer SA-1 to a better quad pot or symmetrical relay-based quad volume control, as all 4 channels are completely different.
But here too, the better way will be a desymmation stage at the input, high-quality 2-channel volume control, a symmetry stage in front of the power amplifiers. So the food for thought was helpful for me too, sometimes you forget what you've learned and fall into old patterns.
By the way, the reason for buying the SA-1 was the completely symmetrical design, total irony...