I don't think Phil understood how the pre-amp worked and to be honest did not seem interested in working it out. However Tom did give an alternative view of the pre-amp which was very much appreciated by myself.
As you say if you make something very flexible it is possible to pull out sounds that you think are dreadful but to the next guy that might be what he is looking for. The flexibility has always been my goal with the basses I want a bass that can go from a quiet subtle Jazz gig to a death metal gig all in the same bass. I only use about 40% of the pre-amp capabilities myself that is what produces the sounds I personally like chances are it may be only 20% of the 40% you use but it needs that for us both to get what we want from it.
There is a learning curve I am the first to admit that but I still feel the effort is worth it. I also accept not everyone agrees with me on that.
Very true.
One last post from me. I understand the appeal of the traditional 2/3/4 band preamps. They allow on the fly changes making it easy to transition if you want slight tweaks for pick vs fingers or fingers vs slap or just need to make adjustments to better fit the room you're playing.
To each his own but I make those changes at my amp. Which is why my non-ACG basses are (and will likely continue to be) passive instruments.
While you certainly can make on the fly tweaks with the ACG (and I freely admit it isn't as simple as on a traditional EQ) the true advantage is being able to truly change the voicing of the bass. I can easily get smooth, modern tones, Stingray sounds, vintage P-bass like thump, super heavy dub tones (WITHOUT touching my amp's EQ), Jazz bridge pickup burp, Ric like snarl, Wal-like authoritative midrange and more. A brief experiment with flats on a couple strings even got me those hollow Hofner tones.
Lots of instruments promise this sort of versatility, but outside of something that uses digital modeling like the Line 6 Variax the ACG is the only bass that has delivered it for me.