Now hold on, guys. Before you put me in the ivory tower category, please realize that I thought that we, as audiophiles, were striving for the "ivory tower" of audio. I agree that if we can get the performance we want, with a remote control included, that is great. In my case, I either couldn't afford that performance level w/remote, or it just couldn't be had w/remote. My main question was, would you pick a 2nd choice in performance, simply because it had a remote, and your 1st choice didn't. The question was posed because I saw an example in my friend, who sacrificed huge levels of performance, because the remote was the most important thing for him. I have noticed a sentiment toward this idea on this site, and was wondering how deep it goes. Of course, I realize that some things are done in the name of convenience in all equipment, such as some of you mention like interconnects. But I think that skirts the issue. I am wanting to find out how much influence the mass market, Home Theater, and extraneous bells and whistles is having on our hobby. Since the ubiquitous remote control is the number one feature in the low-to-mid fi category, it is a good guage. At one time, the presence of a remote control simply screamed "mid-fi". No serious audiophile would take any component seriously that was equipped with one. Now it seems that many audiophiles wouldn't take a component seriously that does not have one. Perhaps another question would be appropriate here. Do you believe that the remote control adds cost, and degrades performance at it's price point? And are you willing to accept those negatives, simply because you don't want to get up off the couch?