Why no remote?

Stenho, I've owned most of the preamps that are considered "ultimate" and borrowed a good many others. I could list and describe them in a email if you wish.

I am so completely sold on both the Aesthetix Io and Callisto that I have stopped looking to upgrade that part of my system. You would have to know me to realize how radical that is :^).

I did not see the Foundation Research, at least that I can remember. I understand that it is supposed to be good. Same with the new Burmeister preamp. A reviewer (friend) is currently trying several of these in his own system. His reference is the same as mine, the Aesthetix Io and Callisto. He too has been unable to find anything their equal.

Adding quality sounding remote functionality to a preamp adds significant cost and complexity to a design. Still I've come to the recent conclusion that a preamp cannot be considered a serious high end design if it lacks remote control capabilities. My argument centers around having the ability to remotely control channel balance. Minute changes in channel balance can snap soundstaging into focus. On modern pop/rock recordings the channel balance may need adjusting 3 or 4 times per disc. This is best accomplished from the sweet spot via a remote. It's a minor adjustment, but it's comparable to the difference between being in the zone on a speaker's toe-in angle versus nailing it dead-on.

I think of having a good full-function remote as more than just a convenience. It can actually improve the listening experience by permitting correct volume adjustment at the listening position, something hard to judge accurately when you'd otherwise have to closely approach or go behind the speakers to make a change, as I would. Plus having a remote that controls source selection has helped with component and cable auditioning by allowing me to construct test set-ups where I can instantaneously A/B things with the push of a button from the chair. If you are anal about absolute phase, a preamp and remote that allows this parameter to be switched on the fly could be the only way to go, because the difference can be frustratingly obscured when you're walking about or standing in between your speakers.

In the case you're looking at, I actually suspect it's likely AI's small size as a company, as much as anything else, that prevents them from offering both a remote *and* a competitive price on their product, the basic engineering of which was done quite a while ago now. A company that makes and sells a sizably higher volume of production every year like C-J will have a natural edge with such considerations. As far as sound goes, I think enough has been learned about implementing remote control at this point that it is probably not correct to say that, all other considerations being equal, a non-remote preamp will still always sound better than one with a remote, though we obviously pay to have it done right. As a matter of fact, I think that the demand for remote contral has actually prompted advances in the design and implementation of volume-attenuation systems within preamplifiers, away from potentiometers (with or without motors) and coarse stepped-attenuators, toward discrete fixed systems emloying conceptually-simple but complex-in-execution resistive or shunt designs that raise prices, but offer theoretically improved sound quality over their adjustment range.

Ok - I admit that I am biased because I own one, but the Ayre pre-amps(K-1 and K-3) have a remote control option that employs the use of a stepper motor and a drive belt that turns a gear on the volume control shaft. This is a very elegant solution, as it moves the control mechanically without degrading the signal because its totally outside of the signal path.

Great responses all. Appreciate the feedback.
Thanks again,
Dave