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


There are some audiophiles for whom cost is no object; they buy what they wish and every single tweak and gadget which promises to improve the sound. And the industry is all too happy to produce such tweaks -- often made of expensive materials with elaborate engineering explanations. Those who question the value of these tweaks are frequently accused of being "naysayers" who are either too ignorant or insensate to realize that "everything matters."

Of course, money spent one place cannot be spent elsewhere; expenditures on tweaks take the place of other more central factors affecting the sound. In some cases, those tweaks are worth it; you can hear the difference, and that $400 (or whatever) really could not have improved your speakers or sub or amp, etc.

So, the question here is simple: Which tweak have you tried which, after some experience and reflection, you realized was either *not* effective or not the most effective way to improve your system? 
128x128hilde45
For going on 30 years my reference standard for cones and footers was Black Diamond Racing. Still love the Shelf and Round Things, but almost all the Cones have been removed for Nobsound springs. 

The springs do require some adjustment. The sound varies a lot depending on the number of springs for the weight of the component. This is a drawback if you want something simple, but a big plus if you want to be able to tune the sort of sound you want.  

So BDR Cones out, Nobsound springs in.
@millerc and @twoleftears - thanks. I was really trying to avoid a much wider and contentious conversation by asking the question so narrowly,  and I appreciate the straightforwardness of those last two answers.
@mahgister,

Are you able to think?
:)


Good question, but a little naughty from someone with such a philosophical bent as yourself.


@oldhvymec,

Kinda like Bruce Lee’s book, that no one could understand, BUT HIM...


Isn’t that just one man’s journey into the unknown leaving behind a metaphysical mindmap for the benefit of not only those that may wish to follow but the author himself?

Of course, as usual, it’s a case of one person’s experiences and memories translated into words and then translated back again by another...

Things sometimes can and do get lost in translation just as often as at other times things may be found.


As for that question of whether a $500 system that’s been well set up and placed in a sympathetic room can sound as good as a $50,000 one that’s not - I think we all know the answer to that.

At least those of us who have been to as many shows as I have. Things may have improved lately with setup but cramped hotel rooms are usually not the best place to demo new products.

Hi-Fi equipment selection, setup and room interface matters - a lot.
My first reaction to, "embedment"  wasn't exactly positive.     Since; I've adjusted my thinking.      Some simply communicate their thoughts differently.      As many of us understand (sometimes, from decades of experience); what are being termed such, are prerequisites for any good music venue's viability.      In a properly, "embedded" home environment; the better the associated gear, the more obvious and efficacious any tweaks should become.     That's- IF, from the start, they are worth their weight in salt and compatible.    I'm referring to performance, since aural acuity varies greatly.     KUDOS, to those that experiment, regardless of result.      Also: Some seem to miss the fact, that improvements in sound are (or- should be) cumulative.       The only limit is one's own satisfaction (far as I can tell, anyway).     
cd318, surely you jest. I've heard some amazing looking systems at Hi Fi shows.