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

So this is not a thread about tweaks, but a thread about perceived value.

It's only a tweak if it costs more than the person opining wants to spend. Interesting thought.

So to me, maybe nothing in my system is a tweak, but to someone else everything in my system (turntable, DAC, even speakers) could be a tweak.

I probably got things off topic. What I consider jewelry would be different than tweaks. I've tried a lot of the mentioned tweaks never heard any quantifiable improvement. I've also tried what I call jewelry same deal never really heard any improvement once my biases were removed from the equation. 

$50 or so after market power cords

Not only we dont have a definition of what a "tweak" is, but it seems that we dont even have a clue about a simple fact:

how can anyone could be able to perceive some change and qualify it positive or negative change, with an audio system that is not mechanically controlled for resonance/vibrations, that is located in a house where the noise floor is high like most houses, and where the acoustic controls of the room is inexistant?

I will not even speak about regular uneducated ears who accept to live with such an audio system , i dont have any other word: a badly E.... system.....People then succumbs to temptation of a costly upgrade for solution to their deficient E....Or they buy a ready made costly "tweaks", nevermind the word definition....

I cannot use the word E....in this thread, the reader must read my past posts to guess it....

:)

A philosophical simple point: when we dont have an adequate CONCEPT for a reality or for a phenomenon, we cannot adequately PERCEIVE it...

This is epistemology for children.....

:)

A "tweak" is a ready made identical solution product for all audio system, room, and house ....

A control device for one of the 3 E... is a specific  partial solution inscribed in a set of step by step  listening experiments ....

Calling my devices homemade controls "tweaks" is simply  confuse an object with a concept and a method....

Is it not clear?

@djones51 -- Sure, just voicing opinions -- or rather, "facts," namely, facts about what did or didn’t make a difference for you, in your system, with your preferences, etc. The more clearly we describe the experiments we conducted, the more others can try them to see what they think.

@mahgister. Surely, from what is above, the term "tweak" has been adequately delimited. But, since you’re not clear yet:

• Some things are necessary to make the system even work (make sounds!). They’re more than tweaks.
• Some things are intended to improve the main function of the system, how it sounds.
• Some things are intended to make a system look more attractive. I like djones’ term "jewelry" for that. ( Where "jewelry" indicates an aesthetic factor which does not bear on the sound but rather the overall experience of the system, which includes visual appeal. Nothing wrong with "jewelry" (visual improvement) unless it’s pretending to be a "tweak" (sonic improvement).

Finally, your epistemological point is, what? That unless people have an "adequate concept" for a phenomenon they cannot "perceive" it? I’m sorry, but that kind of intellectualism puts down the experience that so many careful listeners on this forum clearly have. They may have different ways of expressing their experience, and they may still be finding the words in which to express it, but the notion that if they don’t have a "concept" first they can’t perceive it? I cannot accept that.