Remotes: Who needs 'em?

There was a piece about this very phenomena on some Sunday night hour long news show a while back. It seems the short time from design to market is blamed as engineers don't have time to create intuitive remotes. Some MIT prof said he couldn't figure some of his out either!

the concern with a mechanical device such as a remote, is a trivial pursuit. there are many more important things in life to complain about than a remote.

why make a fuss over a mere bagatelle ?

Holz

If you're a "retro-grouch", all you have to do is toss the remote and be done with it.

Morgenholz, begging to differ with most above, the subject as well as your humorous prose touched a soft spot.

I assume the 56 button remote is there to outdo its neighbour, sporting a now insufficient 54 buttons...

There is, however, ONE near-indispensable function for a remote: volume control!

When listening to classical music, the difference in spl between the soft (ppp) & the loud (fff) passages is such that it warrants the use of the volume control. Remote volume is great as it keeps you minimally distracted from the music.

Morgenholz, I can appreciate your mindset in regard to functionality. Complexity is not the issue, or else we'd be in real trouble - a cell is a testament to specified complexity. However, it is no more complex than it needs to be, and fairly well designed, I'd say.

Sometimes designers, in the pursuit of absolute informational domnination of operability, have created remotes like you describe. Fifty-some buttons, while likely hyperbole, is not too far off the mark. I reveiwed the Ayon Audio CD-1, which is tremendously sweet sounding, but has a horribly cluttered remote. I suggested an additional remote with simplified functionality to eliminate the confusion.

Seems you're more upset with poor design, and feel the simplest/cleanest method is preferable, and that we've become far too lazy in the modern world. I wholeheartedly agree that we're too lazy. However...

Two thoughts: I prefer having a remote, as I often adjust the level while listening, sometimes between individual tracks. Truthfully, many times I am thankful for a remote as I excercise vigorously daily, and many times in the evening I am exhausted, and simply want to relax and physically rest while listening. Frankly, it's a pain in the ass to have high end gear which does not allow me to control its functions from the listening chair.

Also, whatever gains/losses due to a component having or not having remote pales in comparison to the system synergy. One IC can make as much difference as the presence or absence of a remote. One power cord can do the same. I have heard in my rig a few pre/amps/integrateds which are remote controlled and sound every bit as good, considering ALL parameters, as some high dollar, low watt SET amps!

I would not go so far as to say that a remote control option on a pre, for example, fails the Law of Efficacy - in other words makes so little difference that one cannot hear the distinction. However, there are so many variables in the rig/system that the remote is a very small compensation acoustically to be made for the huge amount of convenience it provides. If only pre/integrateds without remotes were superior, I'd use only them. However, that is not the case, and there is no roadmap to the perfect/ideal sound of a rig with or without remote.

Being a molecular biologist, you should be able to appreciate more than most the nuances I have described in relation to the system and a remote's functionality within it. After all, you did not actually take the position of a remote damaging the sound of the rig. Your concern seemed to be more or less with the fat-ass humans not using their wonderfully arranged molecular structures to get excercise. Poor life management.

I excercise, but when I want to relax and am dead tired, I LOVE the remote! :)