interesting, but I still won't buy a non-remote pre, and don't understand why a remote motor can't be installed without affecting the sonics.
Remote volume control = unacceptable compromise?
Reading through some of the threads it seems that the absence of a remote control on a pre or integrated is a ‘deal breaker’ for some here. These are my experiences. A couple of years back, at a private listening session with a maker (anonymous ‘cos it really doesn’t matter who because the thread might loose focus) had 2 preamps identical other than one had a remote volume control and other was manual. Both volume controls made by Alps. Apparently these are among the best.
Using a digital source with twin analogue outputs and full-range speakers and a sophisticated SPL meter the system was set up to switch, using a Manley Skipjack, between the two preamps. At identical SPLs for both, the differences were clear. At low SPL, detail retrieval was reduced when the remote control was used. At normal listening levels the differences were slight and at realistic levels the remote unit sounded a bit harsh. Or perhaps the manual unit was less detailed? Hard to say for sure.
There was a difference. The amp designer didn’t prime us with his own opinions. The preamps were behind us. Switching was random.
It was a bit of a ear-opener for me. Based on this the designer decided not to proceed, for the foreseeable future, with a remote preamp. This was because of unacceptable sonic compromises. He pointed out that while circuits can be constructed by him with endless different component configurations, neither he nor his competitors were in a situation to build from scratch a remote control volume mechanism. He reasoned that his years of work should not be compromised because of the compromises made by OEM suppliers.
Some pointed out that he was missing a part of the market. He agreed – but said while acknowledging this, he felt his buyers valued performance over convenience. Before the demo I’d have disagreed. During the demo though, I changed my mind. Nothing has happened to me since that time to change back.
Using a digital source with twin analogue outputs and full-range speakers and a sophisticated SPL meter the system was set up to switch, using a Manley Skipjack, between the two preamps. At identical SPLs for both, the differences were clear. At low SPL, detail retrieval was reduced when the remote control was used. At normal listening levels the differences were slight and at realistic levels the remote unit sounded a bit harsh. Or perhaps the manual unit was less detailed? Hard to say for sure.
There was a difference. The amp designer didn’t prime us with his own opinions. The preamps were behind us. Switching was random.
It was a bit of a ear-opener for me. Based on this the designer decided not to proceed, for the foreseeable future, with a remote preamp. This was because of unacceptable sonic compromises. He pointed out that while circuits can be constructed by him with endless different component configurations, neither he nor his competitors were in a situation to build from scratch a remote control volume mechanism. He reasoned that his years of work should not be compromised because of the compromises made by OEM suppliers.
Some pointed out that he was missing a part of the market. He agreed – but said while acknowledging this, he felt his buyers valued performance over convenience. Before the demo I’d have disagreed. During the demo though, I changed my mind. Nothing has happened to me since that time to change back.