A couple of thoughts here on "psychoacoustics":
We are overlooking the aspect of NEGATIVE BIAS, whereas a proposed concept "pegs the needle on our BS meter" yet produced clearly audible benefits. I'm sure I'm not alone when mentally evaluating the viability of a new "tweak" with a high degree of skepticism, only to discover very positive (mind blowing?) results in many cases. This would certainly remove the psychoacoustics element of "wanting it to sound better" from the equation, and apply "rational subjectivity" to the testing.
The term "Snake Oil" implies the intent to defraud through deceptive practices. I would submit that the vast majority of manufacturers make a good faith effort to provide legitimate sonic benefits of their products and have done their due diligence. Products that have endured for generations have, in my opinion, reduced the "snake oil prospect" to a number approaching zero. "Snake oil" products are rare, and an exception in this industry.
I have no doubt that some audio enthusiasts have inserted something "new" into their systems with no sonic benefit. They HEARD what they HEARD. And, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the same identical "tweak" was clearly beneficial in another system. And, they HEARD what they HEARD. it doesn't make one or the other right or wrong. Just an entirely different set of variables -- including our ears.