Why no remote?

The volume control implementation used in audio demands low noise, transperency and minimum reactance.

Remote control volumes usually incorporate motors along certainly with DC to drive the motor that becomes a part of signal path(hm... noisy often if not always) or digital stepped switching and digital switches for the input/output selectors(an extra element in the signal path i.e. noise, distortion etc...).

The Mara's Remote Control Theorem is as follows:

For every remote-controlled (preamp or source) unit there is always non-remote that is much better.

It doesn't mean that AI will sound better than CJ since there are too many variables why you will like one component over the other still...

Well, here's one reason. To provide a remote costs money. If the manufacturer is trying to hit a price point, he can either improve the sonic components, or put in a remote control. So, at a given price, all other things being equal, the non-remote unit will sound better for the money. This is because the manufacturer had to cut out something somewhere else to find the money to include the remote. You guessed it, in the sound quality. In a price-no-object item, you might not have to sacrifice anything but money, and have the remote too. And at current markup structures, if the remote components and control gear cost the manufacturer $100, it will cost you at least $400 for the luxury, or it will cost you $400 worth of sound quality. Will you get up from the chair for better sound? I will. But for many people, convenience is more important than sound. So many manufacturers choose to include these remotes in lower and medium priced gear. In high priced gear, it is less critical, because you are paying the big ticket anyway and you can then have both sound and remote without sacrifice.

Oh, yeah... One more thing:

When buying used equipment remote-controlled gear might to some point be a-bit more marketable than non-remote since it in general drop its price to the point of non-remote gear anywhay...