Man, where were all you guys when I was asking around for suggestions? 
Ditto, I was right here as well and put my two cents in on that a couple times.
Truthfully, I've been a bit bummed since I double-checked a little while back for your feature set and found that the HPF wasn't included -- went from pretty excited about this preamp to just a sideline observer. I know from a design standpoint you've got to make choices and there are tradeoffs, but I'm not sure I personally can get used to having a preamp without a HPF.
Figured I'd just let it lie, but if you want arguments:
I know nothing about home studio users, but I'd imagine most do a significant amount of post-processing, editing, mixing, etc. The same argument about doing it in post as is applied to the HPF need seems to work here -- if studio users need to reverse phase on a channel, it can be done easy enough in post.
As to HPF, everyone says do it in post or else risk losing the low end without recourse. I don't get that, esp when many people on ts.com will say with 24bit recorders you can record with alot of headroom, say record at -12dbFS, and then normalize in post. If you do this, you will raise the noise floor by 12db when you normalize. Probably not a big deal given the dynamic range of a 24bit recorder, but it's the same thing that would happen if you want to reverse the HPF you applied in the field.
Here's the scenario as I see it: Apply HPF in the field when you think you need it, say 80 Hz/6db slope. So you will be filtering at -3db attenuation at 80Hz (the filter knee), sloping to -9db attenuation at 40Hz, and -15db at 20Hz. You get home and decide you were wrong -- the low end is not gone and lost as everyone always says, it is just attenuated. So you design a reverse filter to raise the 20Hz range by 15db, rising to 9db gain for 40Hz, and 3db gain for 80Hz. You've just reversed your mistaken application of the HPF, with the penalty that the noise will be raised by 15db at 20Hz, 9db at 40Hz, and 3db at 80Hz. Really probably not much worse than normalizing a 24bit recording that was purposely recorded at -12dbFS and then normalized to 0dbFS.
Flip side is that if you really needed the HPF. In this case, if you used it in the field, you're golden and you've maximized your signal to noise ratio (say for example recording perfectly so you are just short of 0dbFS). If instead you record without a filter and decide to apply the HPF in post, you will apply the HPF with software at home and will then attenuate those low frequencies. Since low frequencies hold a lot of energy, once you apply the HPF in post, you will reduce the overall volume of your recording, say now post-filter it is at -3dbFS. Ok, then it's time to normalize and you raise the gain by 3db -- and in the process raise the noise floor of your recording by 3db compared to what you could have done in the field had you applied the HPF then.
Bottom line, whether you do HPF in the field or do HPF in post, if you prefer a certain amount of low frequency content to your recording there will be a risk either way. If you do HPFiltering in the field and need it, your recording will have a better signal-to-noise ratio across the spectrum compared to a recording made without HPF, with the filter applied in post and then the recording normalized to 0dbFS. Or you apply HPF in the field, find you don't need it and need to reverse that filtering by adding gain to the low frequencies in post -- and again raising the noise floor. Since I have a good idea when I need HPF and when I don't, I'd rather apply it in the field and try to get the best recording I can. If I'm wrong, I'll fix the mistake in post and take the hit on a higher noise floor, but I know I'll be right much more often than I'm wrong.
Getting back to the design of the preamp, I think that is pretty much always the case -- provide full functionality, or decide to have limitations in your hardware that will need to be addressed with post processing. HPF can be skipped on the pre, requiring users to fix that in post, or phase reversal can be skipped, requiring those users to fix it in post. For that matter, you could easily skip the 10db trim pots and just have 10db (or 6db) stepped gain. Users who want to fine tune gain can do it in post with software rather than applying it in the field.
Really none of these choices should be a deal breaker -- there have been plenty of fine tapes made by the no-frills m148 (with just a straight 20db gain and no other features), even going into a Benchmark 2496 which also has somewhat limited options for gain -- but different potential users will have different perceived needs as to what is absolutely vital.
Ramble, ramble......anyway, good to know HPF might come along in a future version.
