Why don't all phono preamps include a rumble filter?

@dwette...……………………

Agreed, but sometimes it is the ONLY option after all else fails.

@stereo5 In the end, my primary problem – after I got isolation under control otherwise – was the tonearm. I was using a Clearaudio Magnify. The magnetic bearing caused severe woofer pumping on certain recordings. After doing everything else I could to isolate the problem I finally changed to a tonearm with mechanical (precision ball) bearings. That was the night and day difference that finally solved my rumble issues. I also had to correct some isolation issues, and now I can play bass heavy records at high volume (and that’s with Confidence C2s and a pair of RELs) with no rumble issues at all (unless the record itself is mastered badly in that regard...rare for my collection).

infrasonic rumble can destroy you woofers. especially when listenning at high volumes! My NAD phono preamp does not need a rumble filter as it always cuts those ultrasonic noises. With my former phono preamp (ATOLL) woofers were moving excessivly producing infrasonic bass. 

@wlutke 
its been maybe a year since I have lubricated the main bearing, but when I did, I didn't notice any change.  However, thank you for reminding me that it's time to do that again.
Also, isn't acoustic feedback the same as rumble.  If not, what's the difference?
@dwette 
a rumble filter may be a band aide, however, when engaged, I notice no loss of anything (transparency, detail, staging, etc) other than the pumping of my woofers.
@nrenter 
ok, so in the purist form, inserting a filter in the circuit may not be 100% kosher, however, if your traveling down that avenue, why do designers use crossovers in their speakers rather then design them cross-overless, why use a speaker cable with connectors on each end (rather then use bare wire, and solder it directly to the amp/speaker), why do designers of electronics use IEC connectors for the power cable, rather then hard wiring it (as some do) on and on.  These all affect 'ultimate' transparency, and are design choices.  I just don't believe that any of the things you mention can't be done with no loss of performance, or ultimate cost (1-another switch in this signal path....how many switches/connections  are already in the signal path, are you saying one more switch is going to degrade the sonics to the point where it's so audible that it is going to degrade the sound of your system to a point of dissatisfaction?      2-, after all, in a phono preamp costing several or more thousand dollars, how much more can a 'high-quality capicator' add to the final cost of a product? 3-a change in the circuit design...ok...I agree with that.  I am not trying to be combative with what you are saying, I just believe that these items that you mention can be dealt with in an effective manner.  Happy New Year!

There are just too many factors that create rumble or acoustic feedback (still don't understand the difference), and there are too many people that experience this problem.  I use my KAB rumble filter, with no loss of sonics, so I want a phono preamp with this included.  The only negative I have with the KAB is that another set of interconnects is needed.

@louisl 
I guess it depends on the system, but when I engaged my KAB RF-1 – whether in a tape loop or inline between phono and pre – I experienced a loss of SQ. That is why I made the effort to fix the root cause of the problem, rather than patch it with a kludge.