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.
128x128bigaitch
I thought it would be a deal breaker for me, until I tried a pre without one. The sound was superb. And since I had to get up to change the CD anyway, no biggie to set volume once the first track began. I've learned to distinguish proper volume at seated spot from volume up at my gear (for most situations) so no extra effort expended in setting the volume for me. Still, if I were able to upgrade my pre to include a remote I'd do it, as long as the sonics did not suffer AT ALL. Impossible for me compromise audio quality if at all able.
Yes, as much as a want the best sonics possible, there is also the "dog on lap factor"
Wow. Roscoeiii. I wish I could teach my dog to change the volume. Cool trick. Oh. You meant...... Sorry.
There are volume controls that are remote controllable and that are sonically vastly superior to anything Alps makes, my opinion of course.

A few examples are the DACT, although difficult to remote control but certainly doable as well as the excellent ones made by Bent Audio. Your friend should look into those for his preamp.

Good Listening

Peter
Bdgregory
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.

There are volume controls that have a motor attached that do not affect sonics. The first two that come to mind are Aesthetix IO and Allnic L3000.

I owned both and in the case of the Aesthetix it is EXACTLY the same unit either way. The remote control motor can be added or removed and the original stepped attenuator remains the same.

Bigaitch
The most likely answer I guess is that no OEM maker yet produces an
entirely neutral motorized volume control. Possibly Accuphase, Luxman
and so on do – but if they did they certainly wouldn’t supply outsiders.

Exceptions noted above and likely other Audiogon members can think of other examples.