Tone controls -- assuming you're ok with them, when would you try them?


So, I'm learning and experimenting w/ speaker/sub placement. I've had some success. Presently using my old Adcom GTP-400 preamp (treble, bass, and loudness/contour controls). It's likely my next amps won't have tone controls (nor balance). 

Beyond compensating for old/bad recordings, I realize there is, nevertheless, a standing debate whether tone controls are worth the (likely) sound degradation. Imagine that debate was settled and tone controls were deemed worthwhile, overall. IF you'll stipulate to all that, my question is this:

QUESTION: If the sound is not right in your room, and you've placed speakers as best you can, what do you try next? At what point do you go for tone controls?

Perhaps some just go for tone controls from the get-go…happy to hear from you all, too.

FWIW, I saw this nice list from @erik_squires on this topic:   
erik_squires8,293 posts
08-19-2017 11:06am
Tone controls help us compensate for differences in recording trends across decades of recordings.
Tone controls help us adjust our sound quality to different listening situations and volumes.
Tone controls help us adjust for speaker placement.
Tone controls are much cheaper and more efficient way of doing this than most other solutions.
A good tone control is a lot easier to implement than a good equalizer. Fewer bands so more affordable to use high quality parts.

128x128hilde45
Insertion of EQ between pre and amp allows use for all sources.

In an all digital system, where the DAC is used as the hub for more than one source  the EQ can be inserted between DAC and pre.

The Loki is a quality piece, at a price that allows one to explore the use of EQ without distracting much from funds that might be allocated elsewhere. Does require the cost of another pair of interconnects however. 
I find the anti-tone control fanatics to be the modern day equivalent of corset wearers. Rigid adherence to an aesthetic without much practical benefit
. LOL, I agree Eric.