The Tone Stack Explained in English for Humans

amp EQ gibberish equations

The guitar amp. Why does one control seem to alter what another one does? Why does the mids knob affect volume? And why is the treble pot more like a blend control? Because they’re connected in ways we could not intuit.

After searching repeatedly for a layperson’s explanation of the tone stack – the EQ section found in guitar amps – I realized one would not be forthcoming. There seemed to be two camps: guitarists, who, despite an adorable belief that the three knobs do what the labels suggest, have no understanding of it; and amp builders, who understand it too well and talk to each other in Martian.

As I forced myself to learn it anyway, I took notes using the ordinary language that my brain prefers. Those notes became this article. An understandable description for players who want to better grasp how to get the tones they seek.

I will sometimes have to use words like capacitor and resistor, but only to identify where we are. You don’t have to know how they work. It is however handy to know that:

A high-pass filter lets sounds above a set frequency through, and is formed by a capacitor followed by a resistor.

A low-pass filter lets sounds below a set frequency through, and is formed by a resistor followed by a capacitor.

I recommend opening the little circuit diagram in a new window to keep your bearings while reading. Unnervingly, if you see it enough it even begins to make sense. The diagram and the article describe the so-called FMV tone stack; the design used by Fender, Marshall, and Vox, and the hundreds who followed in their footsteps. Here’s how it looks:

My relabeled-for-simplicity tone stack diagram
The tone stack. Click to open in a new window.

I’ve dispensed with off-putting things like component values that, as players rather than builders, we don’t need to worry about, but the layout is complete, the real deal. It is called a stack because in an electrical diagram the sections sit on top of each other like this, incoming signal at the top, ground at the bottom.


The treble circuit is first in the tone stack. The signal comes in, hits the treble capacitor, then, in place of a single resistor to complete a high-pass filter, like a neat little component on a circuit board, it instead sees the combined resistance of all three pots – the Treble, Bass, and Middle pots – which lie in a row between the treble cap and ground. “The resistances of these three add up and can be thought of as a single resistor.”*

A pot, the knob you turn on the front of the amp, is a variable resistor.

So, being at the top of the stack, the treble circuit has the longest journey in terms of resistance, which is resistance against losing stuff to ground. It sees resistance from the Treble pot, then the Bass pot, then the Mids pot, with ground at the end. So, quite aside from the effects these later pots, Bass and Mid, have on their own bits of the sound, their setting already affects the high-pass filter at the beginning, moving its cutoff point, that is, the point at which sounds are deemed high-frequency enough to be let through to the treble control; basically determining the range of what falls under ‘treble.’

quite aside from the effects these later pots, Bass and Mid, have on their own bits of the sound, their setting already affects the high-pass filter at the beginning… determining the range of what falls under ‘treble.’

Turning the treble control clockwise imposes the least attenuation of this high-end sound isolated by the high-pass filter made by the treble capacitor and the three pots. (It seems we can never add or boost in the tone stack. It’s all about resisting loss to ground, like trying to keep water in a hole-ridden bucket. Carrying the bucket down the hill, you can’t add more water, just try to stop too much getting out. So we resist loss as much as possible when a control is on 10, and allow it as much as possible – “oh to hell with it, let it leak out!” – on 0, turned fully counter-clockwise.)

Signals above the cutoff frequency pass “right through the [treble] capacitor to the top terminal”* of the treble pot. Turning it up, you’re favoring the signal, the product of our high-pass filter, that’s making it to that terminal. BUT. Turning it down doesn’t simply drain more top end to ground, because off the bottom terminal of the treble pot the next controls are waiting: bass and mid. Over here, as the dial twists counter-clockwise, you’re not just attenuating treble but choosing to listen more to bass and middle, shifting the amp’s focus. Think of a flashlight beam; turning this control down is like sweeping the flashlight from right to left across a dark room. You thought the bright and pretty soprano on the right was the only one there – she was all you could see. Now as you pan left you find a baritone and a tenor standing in the corner. And they’re singing.

So the treble control is not a simple more/less top-end knob, it’s a balance control between the product of a high-pass filter (on the right of its dial) and the filter created downstream (left of the dial) by the next two controls in the stack: bass and mid. When the Introduction to Tube Amplifier Theory says in its short summary, my notes in brackets,

“[the treble] potentiometer acts as a balance between the output of a high-pass filter formed by C8 [the treble capacitor] and the three potentiometers [treble, bass, mid], and the output of the complex filter created by R11 [resistor behind bass and mid pots], C9 [bass pot cap], C10 [mid pot cap] and VR3 [bass knob] and VR4 [mid knob],”

that is what they’re talking about. I had to read it about 25 times.


The bass control is the only one that acts mostly like it should, in a sensible, predictable way, at least when considered on its own, so let’s be grateful to it. For the treble control, we made a high-pass filter in order to play with stuff up there in the zingy, sparkly ceiling of sound. For the bass we want the opposite, a low-pass filter, so we can play with stuff down in the low end. To make one of these you just put the components of a high-pass filter the other way around: resistor then capacitor. Presto. A low-pass filter.

This arrangement, resistor then cap, says “everything below this frequency point gets through.” So, all available low end gets through. That’s not controllable though, it’s everything, no lower limit, and would sound like a boomy mess. Luckily, the arrangement that comes next, of that same cap then the bass knob – a variable resistor – makes a high-pass filter right afterwards.

Cap then resistor, high-pass; resistor then cap, low-pass, remember?

So you have a low-pass filter (“all bass this way, please”) running into a high-pass filter (“okay, okay, not ALL bass, jeez.”) Where the cutoff frequency steps in between the two, to sort the welcome from the unwelcome, varies with the setting of the bass knob. If the audible bass were a hump on a graph, turning the control up would move the left wall of the hump further left as the cutoff frequency descended, deeper toward the very boot soles of sound, letting increasingly low frequencies through. Turning it down would shift the left wall of the hump to the right, narrowing the hump, the range of bass that gets through.

Sadly, the bass control isn’t completely normal, even though it’s the most normal of the three. Treble has the longest journey in terms of resistance adding up to affect its filter, like we talked about, because it’s first in the stack. Bass has the next longest; the resistance of both the bass pot and the mid pot, which is last in the stack, add together to be the ‘resistor’ in this high-pass filter (bass cap + bass, mid pots = filter.)

So again the setting of the mid pot, separately from the effect it will have directly on the mid range, teams up with the bass pot to determine how much resistance the high-pass filter in the bass circuit encounters, resistance against losing bass to ground.

You start to see how interactive this shit is.

Resistance Recap

  • The resistance of the treble pot only affects the ‘treble filter’.
  • The resistance of the bass pot affects the ‘bass filter’ and the ‘treble filter’.
  • The resistance of the mid pot, last in the chain, affects all three.


Here we are at the last control. Yes, on the front of the amp the middle control is in between the other two, but that’s some well-meaning deception by the amp designers; electrically it’s last, which becomes significant.

The mid circuit largely copies that of the bass: coming off the same resistor, in fact, it places its own capacitor to form another low-pass filter; then that capacitor and the mid pot, the ‘variable resistor’ here, form a high-pass filter. It’s the same setup, except the high-pass filter starts way higher up in frequency, because mids are higher than bass, silly.

It’d be nice to think that, being last in the tone stack, the mid control made fabulous logical sense, what with there being no other pots after it to vary the resistance to ground like treble and bass have to put up with. But where would the fun be in that?

The output from the mid circuit’s low- and high-pass filters is delivered to the wiper terminal, the central lug, of its control, the mids knob. You can see from the diagram that despite similarities this doesn’t look identical to the bass portion of the circuit. The effect of this is that the mids knob does not raise and lower the cutoff frequencies of its high-pass filter as the bass control does, enlarging or shrinking its range. It acts instead on their amplitude, their ‘volume’. This seems to make sense: if you don’t like the mid voicing of an amp, at least one with this standard kind of tone stack, you can’t alter it, only raise or lower how loud that predetermined mid voicing is. The mids are where they are. Okay. Understandable. People with a working concept of the tone stack sometimes talk about the mid control as a way to fill in the big valley missing from midrange frequency response created by the way the two other tone controls work. Patching an imperfect design.

The mid knob, in addition to its other duties, controls how loudly the entire signal leaves the tone stack.

Being last in the stack means this knob affects other things at the same time. The stack can be thought of as Treble, Bass, Middle, Ground. Middle is the last one before ground; its bottom lug is connected to ground. Turning it down, that is, turning its wiper towards ground, doesn’t just send more and more mid range frequencies to their doom like a regular control, it shorts to ground the mid cap in its little high-pass filter, the cap feeding the pot at the wiper. Things start to collapse backwards from there. The mid cap was the one also creating a low-pass filter in partnership with an earlier resistor, which is now also being grounded out via their connection. And, oh dear, that resistor was shared, serving as the resistor in the bass circuit’s low-pass filter too, so the bass is disappearing into ground as well. Treble is next, via it’s inextricable relationship with these two… Soon few frequencies are left standing but scattered stragglers. The amp is noticeably quieter because almost every range of sound it makes is being diverted to ground, where signals are sent to die.

I like to think of this as scientific proof that if you aggressively scoop your mids you are confused by tone and trying to avoid as much of it as possible, a grounded mid pot not just reducing mids but eliminating much of the rest of the amp’s sound.

But more importantly this explains why the mid control not only attenuates the mid frequencies, “it also attenuates the overall level of the output signal.”*

So: the mid knob, in addition to its other duties, controls how loudly the entire signal leaves the tone stack, before continuing its journey. This level holds sway of course over what happens next inside an amp, and so on and so on until you go mad or join the Metro forum. But the tone stack, isolated such as we have traveled it here, has at least begun to make sense. I hope.


The reason I looked for a layman’s explanation of the tone stack is because I am a layman. With good reason you may now be pondering the apparent paradox in a man hoping to bring clarity to a subject he doesn’t understand by writing about it.

It’s true: I don’t understand physics or electrical circuits especially well. In the absence of a satisfying explanation of the subject I simply forced myself to look at the dryer literature until it made sense. Hours and hours with articles and diagrams. The wife was quite worried. However I have no training in these fields and extensive training in humility; if something’s not right here, I believe you. Just tell me what it is.

I’m just a picky musician who fiddles with tone a lot. The more I tweaked the controls, the more curious I became about their relationships, about what was going on back there. It certainly wasn’t as simple as each control independently adding or removing whatever the label said underneath. It appears as a strange knowledge gap when only amp-building electrical geniuses know this stuff, while we legions of guitar tone obsessives spend hours coaxing our results from controls we greatly misunderstand.

* Quotes from ‘Introduction to Tube Amplifier Theory’ by David Sorlien and Stephen Keller, a gem which, as the most-digestible of the not-very-digestible available literature on amplifier design, I learned much from, and encourage you to read should you seek a more technical understanding of the tone stack.

Introduction to Tube Amplifier Theory, PDF.

32 Replies to “The Tone Stack Explained in English for Humans”

  1. Really helpful explanation. I too have been pounding my head against the wall trying to make sense of what is going on in a FMV tone stack. Thanks for posting.

    1. Mike, I am so glad to hear this is understandable. I feared I’d gotten too close to the bewildering tone stack in my research, and had begun to sound like… like them. Thank you.

  2. I have to say I read this 3 times mid way throught the 3rd time I was hit by the brick called clairity…

  3. GREAT article! That took a LOT of the mystery out of what was going on behind those knobs. I also LOVE the photo of the tone knobs at the beginning of the article. Briallant!

    1. Highly appreciated, Joe, thank you. It was worth the headaches and crossed eyes to finally get a handle on all this.

      (Glad you like the little Photoshop job on my amp, too.)

  4. This is a fantastic article, but I still have one question. How does a presence control woRk and fit in? I may be mistaken, but I’ve read that it has to do with a negative feedback loop or something.

    1. Ah, the damn Presence control. Aiken describes this better than I can, and almost in English:

      The short version is that some amps take a little bit of your final signal and feed it through the circuit again, which evens out response and tightens up the feel. Turning up the Presence control actually saves high frequencies from going through this refining cycle, so you hear more of the raw, crazy treble that would otherwise be made smoother and more polite by being reprocessed. (The problem with a solid definition is that some amps don’t do this, but just add another control to the tone stack which operates like its buddies, and label it “Presence” anyway.)

      1. Bugger. The link went 404. Any chance you have its content copied somewhere and can repost?

        1. Simply go to and paste the above link. Then select 2013 and july 21. There you have it!

  5. Thank you! As a musician who has a brain very much not well-built for this kind of stuff, bbut who has a very large amount of interest in it (and has spent the past year putting himself through thr grinder learning electronics from hobby books and whatnot), I feel qualified to say that this is an extremely intuitive and helpful explanation. Your writing is so clear and in-tune with the way probably almost all of your readers (including me) need to see this kind of thing written out, that someone with the patience to stick with it through the whole article can’t help but understand it.

  6. Thanks a lot for the info! I’ve been looking for a while to get this explained “in English”… Very helpful!!!

    I have a question for you regarding tone stack…. How would this diagram compare to an amp that has only a “TONE” knob and not the three separate knobs??
    I currently have this type of amp and was thinking of modding it to get the three controls, which leads me to the next question, would it be worth the hassle????

    Thanks again mate!

    1. Joe,
      Modding a standard “TONE” knob to the three knob style is a huge thing for a beginner, a medium size overhaul for “one of them.” Probably not worth the hassle unless you really like this stuff, and/or really hate it as it is. Also, the “tone” knob is usually just a high pass filter to ground, like on a guitar tone control basically, its much different. Regarding the presence control, it is the same as a “tone” control but on the NFB loop. So there is a wire from your output tranny, usually the lowest impedance tap, which goes through a resistor, usually ranging from 10k to 100k. then inputing back into the circuit through the phase inverter. The presence control then, is also just like the tone control on your guitar, just letting some highs to ground to make it smoother and less ice-picky, There is more to it, involving the phase inverter which is really complicated, but that should quench your thirst for presence control stuff.

  7. James Robert Elvin says: Reply

    Do guitar pedals next!!! This is amazing!!

  8. Hi guys, Actually it is a misconception that F and M have the same tonestack, its very close actually only one change. The mid pot is wired as a variable resistor in a F and in a M its like what you have. Basically, You put a wire from the top of the mid pot to the middle, and put the mid cap to the top or middle of the mid pot then as they are connected. That is the fender design, the M is what your diagram is. I guess I’m one of them going nuts at the smallest little flaw.

  9. Excellent work, thankyou.

    This has shifted my understandings significantly on the endless hunt for tone. Scooped mids have always irritated me, leaving just the thin screams and flatulent bellows of the extremities. Armed with your thoughts I’ll be rethinking my relationship with my little Laney A-class, and the various guitars, pickups and tone woods, and all the variables in the long train from fingers to ears.

    This is a piece that should be handed out with every new amp purchase. It’s such a clear exposition of the fundamentals that my amp tech has been trying to hammer into my head for a long time. I can now see quite why he occasionally goes berserk and swears off the whole business. The gap between guitarist and electronics engineer sometimes makes the Grand Canyon look like a crack in the pavement.

  10. Stefan Wickenden says: Reply

    You are an absolute star Gray!

    And for Issac Phew!
    I thought I was going cross eyed when it came to the difference between Fender & Marshal tone stacks! Doh!

    Fab stuff guy’s

  11. […] confused. Here's where things go: That doesn't match the "typical" tone stack wiring: The Tone Stack Explained in English for Humans | Pick Roar That resistor you mention doesn't go near the Treble pot. Also, in the picture you can see there […]

  12. Guido Guidi says: Reply

    Beatiful article; Gray!
    I’ll have to go over it a couple times, though. I will!

  13. Perfectly well written. Thank you!

  14. ahhh… this would explain my traynor ts-50b. from left to right:


  15. I’m confused:
    A high-pass filter is an electronic filter that passes high-frequency signals but attenuates signals with frequencies lower than the cutoff frequency.

    That means that the treble-control doesn’t affect the high frequencies.

    Is it possible that you confuse a high-pass filter with a low-pass filter?

    Great work, at all!

    1. I think I can see where you’re coming from, Kurt. The control itself is not the filter. This might be the source of your confusion. The treble control is “assigned” the frequencies resulting from that high-pass filter. On 10, the control resists losing these high sounds to electrical ground, and you get to hear them. On 0, it lets them ground out, and they never make it to the speaker.

  16. Nate Zapotocky says: Reply

    Great article. Thank you for doing the research for the rest of us. I understood it first read through.

    I got to wondering, what would be the best way to dial in your tone with this kind if tone stack? Like, where should you set the controls for a starting point? Then, what order would be the best for setting the pots?

    1. I’ve wondered about this, too. If I designed an amp, I like to think I’d voice it so it sounded best (to me) with the controls all at 5. Then players could dial in more or less of anything to taste. It’s a nice memorable base to come back to. But I’ve heard some players say that since you can never truly add anything in the stack, only lose it, that everything-on-10 is their starting point, then they decide what, if anything, to subtract. That still ignores the interactive nature of the pots; that if you turn one, you’re affecting another. We need one of the amp Martians to tell us.

    2. Thats the thing, you might need to go back and re-read because the point is that there IS no solid order in which to go at the controls because every time you touch one, you’re affecting the other two…….so it’s case of wherever you start you’re going to shift it all as soon as you touch your first pot, and it doesn’t even matter which one it is, thats the whole point. There is a very complicated relationship between these three that cant be confronted with a step by step order of doing things.
      The idea to start developing in your head is that you “shuffle” things around……turn some treble, increase some middle, back to the treble, now do something with the bass, now you have to adjust both treble and middle again……..and it just carries on and on until you finally shuffle all those dials into their final position.

      Thats how it’s done if you’re REALLY searching for tone. It’s not easy and it takes time and the risk is that if you get into this stuff too deep you’ll spend all night turning dials and none of it playing your guitar.

      have fun whatever you decide to do…..but dont forget…’s not a set order, it’s a multi shuffle. Think of it as the “pot dance”. It goes backward and forward and never ends.

    3. P.S If you absolutely MUST have a starting point given to you by someone else, then start with the middle on 5 and the other two on zero. Then take it from there. Give it some bass to warm it up. Now you might have to reduce some middle because dont forget, thats extra volume you just added into the signal and you can scrub it off with the mid. So now you should have a boomy tone, so you need some treble. Turn that up and now you might find you’ve lost both some of the bass and middle, so guess what…’s back to the bass and mid shuffle til you get your warmth back with none of the boom. It goes on like this all night.

      But yhea. If you absolutely must have a starting point, start with the mid. Then work your way from there. You dont have to go bass next like I put in the above example, you can go treble next or whatever you like because the point is that no matter which one you choose, you’ll be re-visiting all three of them again in a few twists time to scrub off the excess of the change you just made that affected the other two.

      My advice is dont get into this, It quickly becomes an obsession. Find a ballpark tone, leave the knobs alone and get back to playing…….because we haven’t even started talking about pedals yet and the way they interact with the tone stack.

      …….yhea………….just play dude, forget it, it’s not important to understand. Twist the knobs til it sounds good then play. Let the amp builders suffer the sleepless nights and the dodgy relationships with their partners.

  17. Man- I can’t thank you enough for this! What is actually happening when I adjust my EQ on my amp has been a mystery for a very long time. I would like to just use my ears and make it sound good, but the way the knobs affected the tone didn’t seem logical, and I was at a loss as to how to make it sound the way I wanted. I had to read through this blog many times, but each time revealed a new bit of understanding. I play through an tele-made esquire, into a JTM45 copy and a 1-12 open back cab. I range from jazz to country and classic rock. The method that seems to work for me is to begin with my presence at 10, treble at 10, mids at 5 and then proceed to shape the treble with the bass control, until I get a nice balance of shaped treble and bass. Then I move to the mids, doing the same . Then I go to the treble and tame it a bit, at the same time exposing the mids and bass, Finally I mess with the presence, though it stays pretty much close to 10. This seems to get me to that tone that serves as a baseline, in which with my volume and tone on the guitar, along with my hands, allows me to get all the tonal variation I need. Once again, thank you so much for putting in the time and effort into understanding this crap, and then explaining it to us so well!

  18. great exposition… I have a handle on it, but will re-read a few times. I am in the throes of Cigar Box music creation and exploration, guitars and matching small amps, but of course (initially) {dare I say it} solid state. Most things I’ve read seem to talk about tube amps, and I don’t see why these shouldn’t work with ss. Am I right or is there something in the impedance or other unknown entity that I am not considering. If it should work… then where does it go in the circuit of an amp (sans pre-amp – or do I need a pre-amp)? Does it go before or after the Volume (that seems to be at the input to the “amp”), or between the output and speaker (where it could play havouc with the speaker impedance?)

    ohhh, a little bit of knowledge is such a dangerous thing!

  19. John Thompson says: Reply

    Years after your post, as I wandered through the wasteland of tonal confusion, I found this article. Fabulous. I finally have a clue after fiddling with dials for almost 45 years. Thank you so mch.

  20. […] Netz findet sich eine schöne Erklärung der Zusammenhänge. Ich verkürze die Aussagen und konzentriere mich auf die 3 […]

  21. Hi Gray, If anyone is trying to understand tonestack, operation, your Labels for the CAPS are a bit confusing, The Cap. you label BASS Cap, is not the Main bass Lift cap, In fact circuit will work fine, with it shorted out, Its main purpose is DC blocking from previous valve, but it does do, a final Very low roll off, Below bass freqs

    The Cap you Label MIDDLE Cap, is the main BASS Lift cap. The bass pot effectively shorts this out, to reduce bass
    Duncan tone stack calculator program is brilliant

  22. Further info, more good info on tonestack operation….

Leave a Reply