Is preamp remote volume a deal breaker for you?

A volume remote is a must have convenience for me.

Regasrding XLRs: I've used balanced cables in pro audio for decades...I've found that better xlr cables really do sound better (surprise), and recently bought a pair of Mogami/Neutrik "Gold" ICs to connect my Kavent balanced preamp to my Forte' Model 55 amp, replacing some no name brand of ICs that came with the preamp...man...the Mogamis SUCKED with tizzy, harsh treble, weird harmonic energy...bleah...sounded so bad I couldn't tolerate an interminable break-in period and replaced them A'quest Diamondbacks that sounded great immediately (and even better after some break-in). This was surprising in that I've never had such a dramatic case of cable failure.

Charles1dad, I thought it was a good analogy because performance in car parlance has do with horse power, handling, top speed/acceleration which are analogous to power output, dynamics, and frequency extension in audiophile terms. Soft pillowy quiet ride and leather interior etc of Lexus sedan are all conveniences like a remote. We, at least me, listen to music almost every day so the daily driver analogy applies. But we are digressing from the original point of my thread.

Thanks, Kirk. Good points, of course. Re the two adverse situations you indicated as being most likely to occur when a 600 ohm load is used, those reading this should note Ralph's (Atmasphere's) reference to the need to be able to drive 600 ohms "without degradation." In other threads he has made clear that "without degradation" includes having insignificant effects on frequency response and distortion, a condition which will not be met by many (and I suspect most) preamps and source components.

Tim (Timlub), thanks for your kind comments.

Best regards,
-- Al

I would therefore expect that in the case of a short cable, say a few feet long, and if the cable is reasonably well designed and is driven from a low impedance balanced output, that those effects would be insignificant both with and without the termination.

The cable-related artifact that a termination resistor improves are its transmission-line effects, which I feel are certainly insignificant at the lengths used in a home interconnect . . . any significant reactances (overwhelmingly capacitance) can be negated simply by a low source impedance. However, there are four ways I can see in which the application of a 600 ohm terminating resistor can make an audible difference:
- Damping the ringing of a line-output transformer (these being very rare in consumer equipment, and don't categorically require damping resistors)
- Improving the noise rejection with line inputs, outputs, or cables that have somewhat mismatched impedances (increasing the common-mode impedance has the same effect)
- altering the bass response of a capacitively-coupled output stage
- increasing the distortion of an active balanced output stage (typically equivalent to an unbalanced output driving a 300 ohm load)

It has always seemed to me that the second two situations are far more likely to occur than the first two.

Dracule1,
Your analogy does`nt apply. As a daily driver the Lexus would in fact be the "better performer". It we move to the race track the race car has the better performance.

I honestly don`t know if a well designed remote degrades sound at the very highest level of performance or not. It`s interesting that many of the ultra level; cost no object preamps avoid the remote control.

As in all things regarding audio, it ultimately becomes a matter of personal choice and compromise.

Syntax, so you rather drive a NASCAR stock race car as a daily driver than a Lexus? :-)

Remote? No way.
I pay for best performance, not for comfort.

Ralph and Al,
After being in and out of this business for 32 years, I don't often learn much new.... I appreciate you guys.
Thanks for the education.... again.
Tim

Dracule1, we investigated relay-operated volume controls and spent a lot of money in the process. They are quite good but a good quality rotary switch sounds better...

Al, one *would* think that the shorter the cable the better, but even in the case of 1 meter, I have seen similar benefits. The example I am thinking of is the tone arm cable, which is often only 1 meter (many audiophiles will go through quite a bit of effort and money finding the 'right' phono cable...). Since all cartridges are balanced sources, its possible to run the phono balanced to the preamp. If you are using a LOMC and have some sort of loading for it at the input of the preamp, the result is that you have a low-impedance balanced line and the cable will have no artifact. So an inexpensive cable in this situation will keep up with the most expensive with ease, as long as the cable is built right, which really has little to do with the cost.

Many people don't realize that LOMC cartridges, while having low voltage output, can have rather high current outputs, thus their ability to drive a 100 ohm resistor and the like.

Here are some quality remote controlled attenuators (the ubiquitous motorized Alps pot excluded) that can be added dto an active preamp.

http://www.tentlabs.com/Products/page31/page31.html

http://www.tubewizard.com/new_remote_volume_control_is_the.htm

http://www.marchandelec.com/att.html
(this one looks like the one used by Atma-sphere MP1)

http://bentaudio.com/index2.html

http://www.partsconnexion.com/tkd_73340.html

Thanks, Ralph. That all makes sense, as I see it. I would add, though, that the values of those cable parameters, and their effects, will decrease as length decreases. I would therefore expect that in the case of a short cable, say a few feet long, and if the cable is reasonably well designed and is driven from a low impedance balanced output, that those effects would be insignificant both with and without the termination.

Best regards,
-- Al

Hi Al, If you put a 600 ohm resistance across a cable, which has capacitive, inductive and resistive aspects, the outcome is that the 600 ohm resistance becomes the primary aspect of what you are driving. The other things (which normally affect a cable when the amp input impedance is 100K or higher) get 'swamped out'.

This is how all high fidelity recordings are possible, BTW. If you have any recordings from the 1950s, what we have is a recording that sounds better the better you make your system. (Some people think that the best recordings were made in the 1950s). How did they do this without high-end cables? How could they run microphone signals over 200 feet and have them sound anything like HiFi over such a distance? The answer is that they used a low impedance termination on the line.

For example, I have a set of Neumann U-67 microphones. They use a small tube preamp to take the signal from the condenser element. This preamp is only a single triode gain stage- so its output impedance is high. But it drives an output transformer that is set to 150 ohms at its output. So many mic inputs on mixers and tape machines have a low input impedance like this. It allows the mic to drive *stupidly long* cables without any degradation at all, and the cost of the cable is kept to a minimum.

Now maybe I'm a little odd this way, but it seems to me that a system that would allow one to ditch expensive cables in favor of even better sound would be a good thing.

Mind you- if the terminations are not there, the 'better sound' I mentioned could well be lost to cable interaction.

07-26-11: Atmasphere
The standard for balanced line is the output of the device driving the cable should be able to drive 600 ohms or less (in the case of microphones) without degradation (this calls for a fairly low output impedance BTW). If the cable is terminated at the input of the amp with a 600 ohm load, then you will hear no difference between a high end cable and a cheap one, ours, or one from Radio Shack.... If the termination is not installed, then cable differences appear.

Ralph, I'd be interested in an explanation of why the termination is necessary. Why wouldn't simply driving the balanced cable with a low impedance driver be sufficient? Obviously less current would flow through the cable if the termination is not present, but I'm not sure why that would make a difference.

On an unrelated note, congrats on your re-done website. Looks great!

Dracule -- in my case, not having a remote would not be a deal-breaker. I have one at present, but I could easily live without it, as I did for many years in the past.

Best regards,
-- Al

Deal breaker for sure.

I must ask ... can't they just standardize the loudness levels someday?

The standard for balanced line is the output of the device driving the cable should be able to drive 600 ohms or less (in the case of microphones) without degradation (this calls for a fairly low output impedance BTW). If the cable is terminated at the input of the amp with a 600 ohm load, then you will hear no difference between a high end cable and a cheap one, ours, or one from Radio Shack. I saw this demonstrated in spades between our cable (which is Mogami) and a cable that retails for $1000/foot. The customer went back and forth between the cable over a period of 2 weeks until he realized that not only could he not hear any difference, but that the sale of the high end cables got him back most of the cost of his preamp (the cables were 24 feet long). He was ecstatic.

If the termination is not installed, then cable differences appear. Its a simple fact that most high end preamps have a problem driving 600 ohms and so the thought of such a termination 99 44/100% of the time is out of the question. But if it can be done, there will be no artifact of any cable. Now when we introduced the MP-1 back in 1989, it was the first balanced line preamp made. We figured everyone else would support the 600 ohm standard; boy were we wrong!

We installed the remote because people ask for it. Engineering one that does not affect the sound (and also fits in the unit so older preamps can be also updated) was/is the yardstick. Most of the remotes we saw at the time did cause some sort of artifact; I remember one very well-known tube preamp manufacturer that offered their first remote where the degradation was enough that dealers stocked up on the previous model to get away from the remote.

As an audiophile I am one of those that will not sacrifice the sound due to a remote. It does seem like I am the minority these days...

Do be honest, I know of an guy who has Atmasphere preamp and amps. He compared balanced interconnects made by Mogami, I think, and a high end cable manufacturer. He said the latter sounded better to him and bought the high end cable at a considerable cost. I have a hard time believing that with Atmasphere electronics, interconnects don't change the sound. I heard differences in interconnect sound in fully balanced system, although not Atmasphere.

For some people, having your equipment rack next to the listening seat may not be practical and may actually affect the sound from all the reflections from the rack next to you.

I still think a remote properly done will not affect the sound. Why would Atmasphere, or any other high end preamp desingers, have done it with the MP1 if this was not the case?

"...with the ability to drive long cables also came the ability to obviate the artifact of the cable itself- so the length and cost of the cable has no bearing on the sound of the system".

Ralph, Are you suggesting that Atmasphere owners could sell off those hi-end cables and run down to Radio Shack or Target for suitable replacements? No difference - they all sound the same?

My preamp is 3 feet from my listening chair. It can run really long cables (I have 30 feet) without any problem so even though I have a remote in the preamp (it uses a custom built switch for the volume control, which is driven by a motor) I never use it. Compromising the sound on account of a remote feature has never struck me as a good idea- the function of the stereo, IMO, is to sound as close to real music as possible and promote the enjoyment of music on that account.

Its my opinion that the ability to drive long cables is far more convenient than a remote- the entire front end of the system- turntable, CDP and tuner is 3 feet from my chair. I can see if it was all set up between the speakers it would be a pain in the rear. But with the ability to drive long cables also came the ability to obviate the artifact of the cable itself- so the length and cost of the cable has no bearing on the sound of the system. That's a pretty big plus!

I have a well designed preamp with remote that sounds great...someday I'll replace it with a VERY expensive preamp and at that time I also plan to pay somebody to sit next to it turning it up and down for me at my whim, thus creating a "win win".

Remote is a big plus but not quite a deal breaker for me. For the last 20 years, my stero has never been without remote (Krell KRC2 pre, Krell integrated, ARC Ref3, ASR integrated) but recently I switched to all Lamm system with Lamm 2L Reference. I suppose I miss remote control quite a bit but not that badly. The improvement in sound over what I had last certainly was well worth the annoyance. If I come across a remote pre that at least sounds as good as Lamm pre in an all Lamm system, I certainly would be tempted to switch if my budget would allow but I certainly would not accept a remote pre that has inferior sound.

In a word...yes

No pre remote so I use CDP remote PAUSE in place of remote pre mute button. I don't want the music to proceed without hearing it anyway. So PAUSE works better for me than a mute button.

07-25-11: Peterayer
I'm with Albert Porter. Sound quality first, convenience second.

No kidding. You are not going to buy a preamp if it sounds like crap with or without a remote. if a remote is important to you, probably have to fork out more $$ but I BELIEVE you can find one that meets your standards.

I don't understand if the remote is designed outside of the signal path ... basically a motor turning the volume knob, how is it inferior to an unit without a remote?

Remotes have never been a deal breaker for me.... until I found a few different nice sounding pre's with a remote...
Deal has been broken

Can't answer the question without hearing the unit with vs the unit without. Once you hear you will know and the rest of these opinions really won't matter. If in fact a remote controlled unit sounds as good as the best non-remote based unit, then buy the one with remote.

For me, my non-remote unit is so vastly superior to any pre around $4000 that I simply cannot live without the music it makes.I so want a remote, but the music I hear engages me so much I really don't care anymore. If you were to ask me this deal breaker question before owning my current non-remote unit, I would quickly claim- deal breaker! After my experience I can no longer say deal breaker. Life experiences change opinions and this question is no exception. If a sound system that totally engages you is the goal, then you're bound to change your mind based on experience.

I think having remote control is almost essential for sound quality reasons. The ideal volume setting changes from recording to recording, and even from track to track, and often lies in a surprisingly tight range. Finding that volume is next to impossible without remote volume control. The ideal channel balance is easier to find without a remote, but, even that task is easier with remote. I frequently make small channel balance adjustments, which are very easy to do with a remote.

I also don't like ANY control that don't allow for small incremental change. For setting balance, one really needs steps as small as .5 db or smaller. One cannot reliably hear .5 db as a change in absolute volume, but that small a change in one channel can easily be heard as a change in balance.

I'm with Albert Porter. Sound quality first, convenience second.

If I didn't have a remote I'd hear even less of what people (i.e. girlfriend) attempt to say to me when I'm listening to my stereo. I've been to the Alps, and I'm staying.

Here's my preamp history:
Onkyo P304
Adcom GFP 565
Melos SHA 1
Rowland Consonance
Adcom GFP 750
Pass Aleph P w/remote
Pass X1
Pass XP-10

Starting with the Rowland, I've had a remote.
Since then, I don't audition anything without a remote.
Why would I? The XP-10 sounds better than anything I've had in my system, ever.
I said the same thing about my X1, until I heard the XP-10.
My preamp is once again the premier component in my system.

Preamp remote and source remote are two different things.

Not only do I eschew remotes, my sources and preamps (both are single input/output so on occasion I'm switching cables) are in a totally separate room than my amp and speakers. Getting up is not a bother. I tend to listen to my CDs/LPs all the way through. Ultimately I'm going to have to get up and flip an LP, reload a tape, or change a CD at some point. I know my media and room well enough that I can set the volume instantly.

In general volume control switches and implementing remote controls are two of the weakest points in preamp design. Designers have to make critical decisions to meet certain price points. The volume switch and how the remote function are designed/implemented are a couple of them. Good switches cost money (heck even bad ones do these days). The work involved in designing/implementing a remote function that doesn't negatively impact the sound, and all but the very best (translated = most expensive) do, involves time and money (even if you are using some off the shelf product like Bent) bumping costs up even more. Some designers cannot justify those costs.

It becomes a trade off for most consumers too. What features/functions do we prioritize in a preamp design? What are we willing to give up to get something we want.

best audio quality doesn't equate with "not having a remote"

with the advent of the music server and using playlists--remote is critical logistically imo. if you play vinyl only, you probably don't care one bit.

absoultely a deal breaker. I have a laptop as my source and I can switch cds/songs very easily. Becuase different recordings have different volume levels, I need to adjust often. I also have my 2 channel set up hooked into tv so I need input select too. For example, I may be watching a football game but have music on. If I feel the need to here the comentary or something, I need to change inputs. Remotes are great, and I do not believe it has to compromise sound quality. I think there is plenty of preamps that sound great with remotes.

Yes, it is a deal breaker for me too.
I REALLY want a remote, (if only for volume and muting).
I too was concerned about the sonic affect to the sound when I went shopping for my last preamp.
That was a major reason I bought the Ayre K-1xe, as the remote was designed to have no affect on the sound.

My two cents worth anyway.

Absolutely. A remote mute button is essential.

Count me in as lazy. No remote, no pre-amp. Take a look at the ARC LS26 I see them listed here all the time for less than 4K. If you want a more tube sound look at the ModWright stuff a friend of mine just got his second one and he loves them. But again no remote...like get out of my chair??

sure is. no remote....no deal!

I hope designers who don't have a remote in their current preamp consider spending the extra time designing or implementing a remote that works to their satisfaction -- but no motorized Alps pot please! I didn't realize such for a large percent of audiophiles a remote was a deal breaker. Manufacturers may be losing more than half their business because a lack of a remote.

Check out Cayin, most of their tube amps have a remote. I have the 100 and I am very pleased.

Cary SLP05 is the ticket

If best audio quality is the goal, then a remote is very helpful. The remote should be capable of making very small adjustments in left/right channel balance. These small adjustments can snap the soundstage into better focus and can only be judged from the listening position. Very few remotes have this function. It is probably very costly to properly implement.

Nope. Best audio quality was my goal when shopping. If that included a remote, then great. If not, then I didn't care. Ended up with one which does not have a remote control and I've adjusted to it just fine. Have had it for years. I spin CDs, one at a time, so I need to get up to swap in a new CD anyway. And quickly was able to judge how loud standing at system was proper volume at seat. Usually get it right so no problem.

Deal-breaker. My last three line stages have had remotes (CJ Premier 14, Premier 17LS2, and now Aesthetix Calypso), and I wouldn't be without one. I strongly recommend the Calypso.

After 10 years of static, yes. I have a c-j PF2 (Alps pot) that doesn't have a remote. I couldn't afford the best model with one at the time. I didn't have a remote before, so how could I miss something I never had. That was fine for years until I realized that static electricity sent loud pops through my system when the humidity was low in winter. I'd have to ground myself by touching the equipment rack before adjusting the volume/inputs on the preamp.

After that, when I upgraded, I didn't look at preamps without remotes. Fortunately, I had the budget to get a preamp with remote and fully appreciate the volume/mute/phono cartridge loading benefits (McIntosh C500T). I won't go back.

conrad-johnson uses resistor ladder attenuators with relays (not pots and motors) on their tube preamps. You might look at their premier 17LS or newer units as a option, especially the used market.

Relax, have a Central Waters Illumination IPA and listen to some Dire Straits...

deal breaker. i'd have to have a remote. i change volume often based on what song is playing.

For me it is a deal breaker. When I found the linestage I liked, I got the designer to add a resistor ladder type volume control that is switched by relay (components can be bought and added by a designer who knows what he is doing).

A well implemented remotely controlled volume/balance setup can be just as good sonically as manual volume control. The designer/builder has to be committed to so doing.

Deal breaker.

deHavilland has a remote stepped attenuator for their pre-amps. I've been using their products for years and am extremely happy with them.

http://www.dehavillandhifi.com/Products%20Page.htm
http://www.dehavillandhifi.com/TW_remote_volume_control_is_the.htm

Feel free to send me an e mail and I can tell you more about it.

No remote. Don't care. Another solution is to use long interconnects and put the pre next to your chair...

No remote, no preamp. Must have a remote, I don't like getting up frequently to adjust the volume as I change the volume depending on the song. On exception would be if I could bring the preamp next to my listening chair but that is not possible so a remote is a must. Thor TA1000 MkII, Joule LA100 MKIII and BAT 5i.