Vote

I do use them to make up for some extremely bad-sounding recordings, but I always feel like the audiophile police are going to break down my door and scold me!

Blasphemy.

I don't have any tone control's on my Krell receiver. I do not miss tone control.

I thought the idea was to get closer to how the music was recorded! If the recording stinks I play it on my HT system otherwise for critical listening I prefer to go with my BAT VK3i.

Not having tone controls is one of the major failings of audiophile equipment. If they were available, I would use them on many, many recordings.

I've never heard any "full function" preamps that didn't suck. As my high school history teacher used to say, 'nuff said.

Never felt the need.

Where I have these controls, I use them. Hey, I'm not too proud to admit to that?

I don't need to use the tone controls very often, but it sure is nice to have them available when a CD needs it.

Yes, mostly to correct room deficiencies. I can not afford a dedicated listening room and I am lucky that my wife allows my audio setup in the living room much less acoustical treatments. Now, I am in the market for a new preamp and all of the best ones seem to lack tone controls. Oy vey!

Yes, I constantly have to fiddle with the tone controls, equalization settings and "loudness" button on the worn out stereo downstairs that makes all music sound like it's being played through a paper-and-comb kazoo. The "good" stereo upstairs does not have tone controls and does not require constant physical stimulation to "get it on."

To make up for the deficiency in my hearing (a feeble attempt, I know)

I use an old Carver CT-7 preamp/tuner that has been heavily modified. The midrange and treble controls are cut back slightly, which makes a significant improvement in my listening room. Without this option my system would not sound as natural as it does.

I don't have bass or treble controls on my preamp. However, I do have a classic Soundcraftman 10-band equalizer that I was using up until a few months ago. It is still connected but I am listening to my music as is without affecting the signal in any way, which is supposed to be the "audiophile" way. I will probably switch back to using it again as I actually think it adds more dynamics to the music. I also do not have the perfect audio listening room, so the equalizer may be a help in correcting any room deficiencies that affect the sound. I like the fact that I have the choice. Currently, I am in the pure signal mode.

I REALLY DON'T SEE A NEED FOR IT. IN MY CAR WHICH HAS A FACTORY SYSTEM I USE BASE AND TREBLE BUT NOT AT HOME.

Whenever I listen to unmastered tracks in the middle of the recording process, it becomes necessary to tweak the EQ to get the right balance. Recording engineers often get so used to their own sub-par monitors that they usually don't have proper balancing for anything but their own systems.

My tone controls consist of HF adjustment on my Acoustat 2+2s, a subwoofer level control, and crossover frequency settings between the 2+2s and subwoofer. I do not hesitate to adjust them as the mood/music moves me.

I don't have any on my preamp, and I always turn them to the neutral position on any equipment that I might use that has the controls ...

dont have any and dont need theme and it sound perfect if the equipment is hige end

No, I prefer my music direct is bogus. The music signal goes through several filters: microphone, recording, mastering, audio components, speakers. You can't get "music direct." Therefore, proper use of the tone controls is valuable and can improve the fidelity. In fact, it can make the music more "direct" by compensating for an opposite filter somewhere else in the chain (such as the recording).

Never touched them, but then again I don't have a Cello Pallet. In my line of work people love the wizbang of toys, I find it to be annoying and very fatiging

Vintage Cello audio palette MIV is fantastic

I never liked tone controls, regardless of whether they're in the signal path. I find their sound artificial and they impose a sound which the artist likely did not intend.

Certain systems in my home have tone controls. All will allow me to disenage them. I find that the noise introduced by said controls FAR outweighs any "improvements" to the sound.

I have however been playing with my balance control.

I used to because I loved a "hot" sound--a lot of bass and treble. Now after reading The Complete Guide to High-end Audio I have gone cold turkey, and it sounds fine.

Sure do. My stereo/HT rig does both for me. I use third octave Eq on all 3 front channels. They are cut only and help with room issues. Really helps dial things in and once set-up makes an noticeable improvement over non at all.

I often twiddle with the volume and crossover frequency on my subwoofer amp. This bypasses the signal path to my main speakers, so as not to tamper with the "purity" of the main signal. Unfortunately, my NHT subwoofer amp places the crossover control on the rear panel, so it is difficult to manipulate. Apparently, NHT thinks this should be a "set and forget" control, but I disagree.

By "bass" control, you mean moving the speakers into or out from the corner of the room, right? And my "treble" control, you mean adjusting speaker toe-in and toe-out? For some poorly recorded or poorly mastered "rock" recordings, I will actually move my planar speakers to compensate. Though normally I leave them in their default positions for best soundstaging. If i had to adjust tone controls for all music, either there are massive problems with the room, or the gear and the room are not a synergetic match. In that case the user should probably address that issue rather than resort to tone controls. Actually moving the speakers is probably better then lossy tone controls on all but the best gear. Also I can roll tubes in my preamp and amp, if I really want to bump the sound in one way or another. Way more fun than silly tone controls!

Actually, all "Yes" answers above.