Tweaks you got rid of because they were not effective (enough)?

Not that effective? Too many cones and footers to recall, let alone list.
Probably the most over-priced over-hyped is the Shakti Stone. 

With others, cost-effectiveness is everything. Ordinary laundry anti-static spray doesn't make a big difference, but doesn't cost hardly anything so is well worth it to me. Ditto painting CD (back when I listened to CD, yikes, that was long ago!)  

Tube dampers not only don't work, but actually made the sound worse.  

I bought only 2 ready made products(used) with a good reputation few years ago before i started my own set of experiments...Bybee one and Alan Maher.....They made a small difference...Enough to convince me about the importance of the electrical noise floor embeddings...

But this small benefit was for me expansive...

I explore for myself other solutions and with the months passing, i discover many unorthodox way to replicate some results of very costly products ( Bybee for example use some crystals)...

After 2 years i discover that there exist 3 embeddings dimensions and that no tweaks can solve all the three and even one by itself...

I then explore these 3 dimensions with a systematic listenings experiments course of my own discoveries...

NO tweaks can solve all embeddings problems, you must solve them one by one by listening and move a step at a time....

The good news is that i paid peanuts for all my created homemade devices and what i bought new was revised and modified and paid also peanuts...


People who speak about tweaks wait for a simple solution to a complex problem, easy to solve by listening experiments and cheap materials....but there is no simple ready made solution that will replace your EARS listening experiments...

The 3 embeddings are the mechanical resonance/vibrations problems, the electrical general noise floor, and the acoustical passive and active dimensions...

You must adress each one by listening first....Not buying....

Example: i bought springs boxes to put under the speakers on top of my own multi layered sandwiche isolation platform....They made at peanuts price a difference.... But after listening i discover the weakness of this spring isolation idea ( they dont affect the desctructive internal resonance).... I decide to finetune it and put a second set of springs boxes on top of the speakers and under a heavy load.... The difference of compression between the 2 sets of springs boxes, one under the speakers and the other one on top of the speakers and directly under the load made a great improvement, decreasing the internal speakers resonance....Then an apparent solution(springs) revealed itself unsufficient by listening experiments, and was revised and greatly improved by the listening experiments....

And trust me the mechanical embedding is as important as the other 2 embeddings, unbeknownst to most....

Ready made tweaks are never a solution by themselves, only a pointer to a true solution that you must create yourself for your particular system and house and ears.....The good news is it is useless to pay much money, all is easy to replicate or be inspired and create your own devices....

Dont upgrade, dont buy anything costly, think and embed everything one step at a time....

True hi-fi cost peanuts if you know how to listen attentively....

It is not so much the price paid that define a true audiophile system, it is first the way the system is embedded in the 3 dimensions.... There is NO comparison between the same system before and after the rightful embedding process...NONE....
Not knowing that, people unsatisfied, upgrade toward costly new hyped electronic component or costly "tweaks"....

:)

From exotic cables, to spikes, to fancy mains leads, to various cones, excessive contact cleaning /enhancements, various wall shelves, deep freezing CDs (yes, even that!) none of them were worth anything more than the initial thrill of trying and hoping.

Eventually the penny dropped.

To get a real improvement it was better and more cost effective in the long run, to just buy better equipment, eg cassette decks, turntables, Minidisc machines, and especially loudspeakers of course.

I’ve tried so many tweaks and they’ve all been more or less a useless waste of time and resources.

Except maybe 2.

Securing the removable stylus assembly to the cartridge body (MM) with a drop of superglue may have resulted in a drop in surface noise.

[ I’ve also heard of another tweak involving some form of isolation between cartridge and headshell (as mentioned by the Funk Firm), but have never tried it myself]

Like @mahgister (see above) I’ve also found that some form of isolation placed under loudspeakers (sorbothane, springs, or just pieces of thin rubber etc) usually helps to clean up the bass end and as a consequence, the midrange too.

Springs might be the best but are far too wobbly for my domestic arrangements, so I suffice with a few simple rubber pads which also seem to help.

Despite the lack of much factual evidence, there also seems to be growing acceptance in pro circles that something like speaker isolation pads can be of real benefit in mixing/ monitoring.

Athough some manufacturers will now offer the consumer the choice between using spikes or rubber feet, none as far as I know have commented upon the differences or which they think is better.

Once I got my Audioquest Niagara 1200, I had no more need for the Gutwire grounding wires that connect to an unused RCA and a AC outlet.

On one component, a hum was introduced so I had to remove it. On the other, there was no hum so I kept it in for awhile. It was when I removed it to see how sounded was when I heard how it hindered the overall sound.

All the best,
Nonoise

@cd318 Thanks for your candor on the things you've tried but decided weren't doing much. It's so easy to imagine one is hearing something "subtle" in response to a tweak, that it's nice to hear someone just come out and say, "nope, didn't hear a difference."

And by the way, anything that removes a problem -- like a hum -- or prevents a problem -- like a surge protector -- does not fall into the definition of "tweak" that I'm utilizing in this thread. They seem like necessary or obviously prudent things to do.