I miss my Loudness Button and Tone Controls....

+1 paulcreed, the RME ADI 2 FS has everything you want plus stuff you will have a ball figuring out, plus it can be ran directly to a amp, no pre amp necessary.  

I must admit, I do miss my tonal controls and regret getting rid of several eq's over time, but don't miss the loudness button, just use the mute button nowadays. 

You've pressed one of my hot buttons with this post. Of course you should have tone controls; that very few higher-end units (preamps, integrated amps, whatever) come with them anymore is, IMO, one of the consequences of audiophile pretentiousness that only benefits the manufacturers. Is there a degradation in SQ when tone controls are engaged? Maybe, a tiny bit. And yes, we're perfectionists. But can you really hear the difference? Try it was a unit that has a bypass button: set the tone controls to flat, then use the bypass to judge the sound with and without routing the circuit path through the tone control pots. 

Here's the thing. Mahgister always advocates for rigorous (some would say obsessive; check out the photos of his system!) room acoustics treatment. Yes, room acoustics are hugely important. The room is one of the very most important components in your music system, no question. BUT...not all recordings are created equal! Tone controls give you the option of adjusting for a recording that is harsh in the upper midrange, or lacking in bass, or a host of other deficits that would be, shall we say, grossly inconvenient to do by re-arranging one's entire acoustic space for each new piece of music. Someone said in this thread that doing so with tone controls is just playing recording engineer, implying that it's a childishly naive thing to even wish to be able to try. Fine; be that way. 

As for the "loudness" control, yes, there's the Fletcher-Munson curve, if you want empirical support for the usefulness of this tool. Of course, good tone controls will enable you to do what a loudness button will do. By "good" I mean something like the "semi-parametric" tone controls on the NAD 7600, which allow you to select three different frequency ranges with a toggle switch that can then be dialed in with the bass or treble pot. Another approach is three controls, like on some of the Marantz integrated amps.

One more thing. IMO, micro-adjusting the balance is very important for fine-tuning the soundstage. Therefore, I consider a powered balance that can be adjusted from the sweet spot using the remote a necessary feature of any amp; I would not consider an amp that lacked this feature.

I also recommend the Schiit Loki+ as a useful tone / loudness option, but for the OP, with his Rogue Sphinx v2, there is no way to use one, as the unit lacks a tape monitor or processor loop. Furthermore, the use of high efficiency speakers makes trouble for any push button loudness, which exacerbates the usual overcompensation of all but variable loudness controls.  My advice is to ditch the Sphinx and buy the Yamaha AS801 integrated, even if you can afford more….or build an Akitika PR102 which has good B & T and a processor loop. For an amp go-with, their GT102 is plenty for your Zu speakers. Full featured tube preamps are hard to find…mostly vintage collectibles, and do you want to invest in tube gear now?  Russian tubes are going to be scarce…

I understand why people want tone controls...I had very good one said my repairman, a very experienced guy who even say they are top notch in the Sansui AU 7700 not toys at all... I am then lucky .... 😁😊

I was so glad to have them FOR YEARS, and i used also refined filtering controls to this day ...

This is the reason i bought the Sansui technology : no negative reviews at all on all counts...I read all for 6 months before buying.... 😁😊 I dont regret my choice...

But i dont use tone controls nor the loudness button after years with them...Only one filtering control button....

Why?

Because contrary to the belief of some who wrote it above, tone controls compensate the gear/room relation with your "taste" and ears, yes, but DONT FIX the room/system acoustic nor can they replace it at all... They can only alleviate the sonic harm of an acoustically untreated and uncontrolled room in relation to the system, or alleviate some wrongly matched piece of gear, thats all...

HOW did i know?

Because i stop using them almost a year ago when my room acoustic begin to be optimal , i did not need them ever for ANY album now, nevermind the recording quality...

Tone controls can alleviate some harm coming from a lack in synergy between pieces of gear or between the room and gear, but IN NO WAY can replace acoustic... it is an ILLUSION, a deceptive belief...

I am not against tone controls, i think most sophisticated amplifier for the general public must have them, and filtering controls , because most people need them anyway...

But dont bent the acoustic truth: tone controls are useless if the gear is well match in an acoustically optimized room...But this situation is the exception among all audiophiles...Not the norm at all ....

Why this is so ?

Because when you tune the room, you tune it for your specific gear in relation to the specific acoustic general content of the room and your specific ears history and specific functional structure in relation to the the brain ( i prefer to use these words than "taste" because i associated taste with the gear fetichism in my posts)..

No audiophile with well matched piece of gear and a well controlled room need any tone controls for any albums...

Mechanical acoustic tuning , what i call Helmholtz mechanical equalization in a well treated room, is a mechanical tone control itself between room new zones pressures distribution and the speakers characteristics and your own tuning specific ears....

Then yes most people can enjoy tone controls, but when acoustic is completely under control there is no more needs for it...

And for those who think that each recording being different it is useful to adapt each one to our "tastes". ..I will say that what is the most astounding fact in a treated and controlled room is the fact that we can NOW perceive all acoustic cues CHOICES of the recording engineer the way they are made because the acoustic settings of our room made them AUDIBLE and they are interesting in itself, nevermind the sound quality of the album compared to another one... ALL ALBUMS ARE SONICALLY INTERESTING NOW , even if the recording remain bad for sure compared to many others;  this is the acoustical hallmark impression of a tuned system/room : emerging acoustical recorded cues choices of the recording engineer for our ears and we become more conscious of  the way some other acoustical choices were let aside because recording art is a trade-off process.......

This is the reason why some "purist" lucky enough to have a good room, treated and under control, "spite" with despise on tone controls, and it is the reason why all of us need for some time like me or forever like most of us tone controls...

Like usual dividing people in two groups is childish to say the least....For or against tone controls, objectivist and subjectivist, ETC and other human distinctions which separate us in misunderstood opposition instead of uniting us in understood differences...

Here’s the thing. Mahgister always advocates for rigorous (some would say obsessive; check out the photos of his system!) room acoustics treatment. Yes, room acoustics are hugely important. The room is one of the very most important components in your music system, no question. BUT...not all recordings are created equal! Tone controls give you the option of adjusting for a recording that is harsh in the upper midrange, or lacking in bass, or a host of other deficits that would be, shall we say, grossly inconvenient to do by re-arranging one’s entire acoustic space for each new piece of music.