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? 
hilde45
I think tweaks are like clothes.
If you only add, without periodically
sorting out the "keepers," you will have a 
pile of stuff that either is neither useful nor
beneficial.

For me, it is mostly eliminating vibration
control pieces.  Adding is the easy part, like accumulating shirts
and pants.  The real work is critically looking at
the whole audio setup, making subtractions,
and re-evaluating the resulting sound changes.
Less can be more.

I might be the only one with this opinion, though.
If it wasn't for the SR HFTs (32X), I would have had to buy expensive quadradic diffusion paneling from front and rear walls.   If it wasn't for the two pairs of Hallographs, my Legacy Focuses would have remained unfocused sounding.  Those are my essential tweaks to building a great sounding audio system.   If I upgraded my speakers to Von Schweikert's upper priced models, maybe I wouldn't need Hallographs.
@krelldreams,

'I’ve found, to ME, in my systems, nothing that has made a difference in sound that has compared to the level of difference I’ve heard/experienced with: changing speakers, changing speaker positioning, treating the room, changing amplifiers, or changing phono cartridges (roughly in that order).
...
Tweaks that DO work are noticeable, and enhance the sound a bit, but I haven’t tried one that made me think; “Wow! I can’t listen to my music without this!”


My experiences too. So far so good but then it gets tricky.


@douglas_schroeder  

'Tweaks are how you do not build a great audio system.'



@millercarbon,

'Tweaks are exactly how you build a great audio system. I would even go so far as to say you cannot build a great audio system for any amount of money, it simply will not be great without tweaks. Sorry. You can build an expensive audio system without tweaks. You can even build an impressive audio system without tweaks. But you simply cannot build a great audio system without tweaks.'


I think it's important to distinguish between what constitutes a tweak and what constitutes good system set up.

I mentioned earlier the idea that an optimized $500 system might match a poorly setup $50,000 one, but assuming that @millercarbon is on to something, could it be even that figure was too modest? 

Actually I'd tend to agree but don't like the idea of equating good system setup with nonsense such as teleportation tweaks, magic pebbles etc.

For example I think most of us would agree that a low noise floor is a good thing.

Therefore wouldn't a million dollar (boutique) system placed in a box shaped front room next to a busy main road be at a serious disadvantage to a 500 dollar one placed in a near silent room which had asymmetric dimensions for height, width and length?

Maybe that's the real question here, just where does good system assembly and  set-up end, and the portal to audiophile snake-oil begin?

It's obvious, as all audiophiles know, that you can't just buy a system and plonk it down willy-and hope for the best sound.

You may get lucky and it may sound good, but on the other hand you might be putting up with seriously degraded sound compared to what your system might be capable of.

I'd say that a room with good acoustics, freedom from electrical and other outside noise, and a degree of structural integrity is desirable.

Speaker placement and perhaps some isolation underneath are also definitely worth experimenting with. 

What else is there? 
It is not technical progress in amplifier design, or in dac design, or speakers design that are the FIRST reason why a system sound great....( for sure nobody will debate that a better design is a better design)

Top Amplifier of the past, or speakers or dac of the past, are good enough for most of us and can rival some new design in some case....

The reason why a system is good is not an accumulation of disparate "tweaks", it is the systematic implementation of some controls devices in the 3 embeddings.... And for sure, we may call that the 4th or first embedding, a synergetic pairing between themselves of the main electronic parts.... A good speaker with the wrong amplifier is not a good start for sure....

My 3 main electronic components has not been changed here for years, why then  is there  NO comparison at all between them before and after the rightful embeddings?

Because this is the way to go, but most people dont even know what is the potential best S.Q. of their actual system.... Their only road for improvement is first and last an upgrading.... But an upgrading, except if absolutely necessary, must be the last thing to do to reach Hi-Fi....

My best to all....