In my case, I have found that less can be more. When I purchased aftermarket power cords for example, I was trying to make something happen with the sound that was not there in the first place. That has been my problem. In many cases, it just caused more harm than good and I have a very modest system but I have many friends who have what I would call high end systems.
What you write here assessor43 is interesting.
For the past few years I've puzzled over the notion of desire to change the sound of the primary components in one's system versus 'enhancing' or improving their sound. At what point does the latter turn into the former?
At what point does one do, as assessor43 describes, more harm than good? When is a component no longer itself? And how do you come to realize that?
Far more questions than answers.
If a component is lacking or weak in some aspect, it seems that replacing it is a reasonable approach rather than trying something else to mitigate or overcome the weakness or to alter the component's basic character. Is the 'solution' to, for example, flabby mid-to-low bass a new interconnect or power cord, without which the problem remains extant? As I've noted before, a few, but very very few manufacturers believe another man's product is required by theirs to be its best.
Which raises the question, why do people modify their system to sound differently than it does natively, out of the box? Putting aside interconnects and speaker cables (because they are necessary for system operation) what are people's goals when introducing after-market power cords, exotic material electrical sockets, various platforms or materials or footers for equipment to sit on, grounding boxes, cable lifters. Etc. Replying "to sound better" seems obvious but unreflective.