True or False?

Wow. This opened a can of worms. What I have to say is that “generally speaking”, the better quality the system, the greater its ability to demonstrate the sonic improvements in tweaks ( ie better power cables and interconnects, footers, power supplies, etc). Think of your system this way, it is a system of parts and components that all work together. From the breaker box, the wire up to your listening room, the wall outlets, power cables, power regeneration or conditioning, to the components, interconnects, speaker and subwoofer cables to the speakers and subs, it’s a system and every part matters. It may even be along the lines of the sayings regarding the “weakest link”. Well if all your links are lousy, replacing one of the lousy ones with a great one may not make a lot of difference. But if your links are generally really good and you replace one with an exceptional link, now you may hear that difference since the rest of your chain or system has been well optimized. So I say the better the system , the more likely there will be sonic benefits from tweaks. 

One thing to remember which I learned long ago.
$$ money doesnot guarantee your components synergy 
or even top quality . For example I have had several Loudspeaker companies, cable companies hang up on my when I questioned them on their pricing for substandard quality a $80 k speaker using $20 Mundorf evo capacitors, or a very famous British company known for their great custom midrange driver using Xover parts from Taiwan ,Yes sad but true ,the vast majority feel 
a ok capacitor ,resistor, or inductor is good enough ,out of sight 
out of mind .electronics same deal average at best parts even in electronics over $10 k each ,put it in a nice machined case 
And  jack up the price . 

To talk about the obvious . The better the equipment the less you have to tweek but having said that you can still tweek , just less .

"Ok, so what I've gathered here is that the better a component is, the less it needs a tweak yet the more it is affected (not necessarily improved) by one."

Thank you AEWarren.  "NOT NECESSARILY IMPROVED"

If something in a complex construction is changed, if it has any effect at all, that effect will either improve or worsen its operation.

If the tweaks are determined without scientific analysis (as most are), logically 50% of changes will lead to improvements and 50% to worsening.

So guys, what are all the tweaks that worsened SQ in your systems?

Our hearing from the factory is not as highly developed as it can be. The more we use it critically, the sharper it becomes. Just like all of our senses.

I think it improves with paying attention to it’s use, just like visual acuity. I conjecture that as our systems improve, so does our ability to discern differences in sound.
For the individual that creates a paradigm where, instead of relying on our ability to make tweaks to our technology, we pay an expert to do it for us.

I’m not sure I have any idea of where the point of diminishing returns and zero returns are, because I can’t say what the limits of any particular persons hearing is. 
I’m much more open to others opinion on what they can and cannot tell by critical listening than I used to be once I started to research the science of hearing, and could relate it to something I know a fair bit about; visual acuity, something that I got caught up in as an artist. It’s fairly maddening to be able to see things that others don’t, and some people are born with it, others have to develop it.

I find that the more I listen to the system and not the music, the more critical I become of my system and obsessed with improving it, which results in refining my sensitivity to the changes in it. It doesn’t seem to end, but it is real.