One cannot ignore synergy in a system.
I have a very revealing, somewhat clinical-sounding Linn Aktiv system. My original TT1 sounded sublime, and it’s slight ‘softness’ (compared to TT2) complimented the slightly ‘hard’/unforgiving nature of my system.
Following an upgrade to TT2, I missed (and think I still do miss) the ‘roundness’ of the TT1.
Yes, the TT2 is more revealing, more exhilarating. But it’s also not as ‘easy’ to listen to as TT1 in my system.
Ergonomically, there is no comparison. The DAC mode of TT2 is a godsend for me, as I play it directly into my preamp, and setting the level on TT1 before listening always drove me mad.
However, TT1 is still very relevant today, and I can fully understand why some would prefer the sound signature of TT1 over TT2, notwithstanding how awesome TT2 is.
I was actually thinking, that this topic might be down to other system kit. (Bit like I am saying hindsight is a wonderful science.) However I said something similar in the Hugo 2 threads, when the Hugo 2 was suddenly getting what appeared to be a trolling. It was being criticised for being bright and thin. Neither is true. I said it was either a case of trolling Hugo 2 and Chord, or people were in denial about their partnering kit.
With the TT2 however this is a different story. The TT2 will not have a thinner sound than the TT. Meaning balancing the sound with the rest of the kit is not on point. Like in your case, you have an unforgiving system and using that as an example. The TT2 is not a hard sounding DAC, so you're not adding more hardness. Also I would personally say the Hugo 2 was a touch softer than the TT2. (When I say a touch, I mean only fractionally.) That I put down to better power supply on the TT2. Yet the Hugo 2 thread is sometimes inundated with comments about harshness.
However I can't see how adding more detail would make a system sound off. There are various pieces of kit that get a particular term to describe them. Ones that reveal the nature of the other electronics. It means whichever way I look on this, it's down to partnering kit. What that means is when people say they prefer TT1, it means they prefer TT1 on their kit.
Just taking that on its own though, with your example of TT1 sounding with a light softness vs TT2. Somewhere where the TT2 is less smooth so to speak than the Hugo 2, is on transients. It comes in sooner, and you literally hear vocals come in faster and clearer than on Hugo 2. (Like when you get a 'T' sound at the start of a vocal line.) Coming from Hugo 2 to TT2, that can be a shock. Hearing stuff I never heard before. Like, 'since when did that vocal, come in like that'. However it would probably have to be a brighter system that can't cope with that. Although I ran some slightly brighter speaker cable before now and I knew TT2 was b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l. Meaning I am still lost over how a TT1 can sound better than a TT2.
I have never heard a TT1, but knowing Monsieur Watts, I can't see how the signature changed so radically. TT1 was built on Hugo 1, which was actually said to be the brighter DAC. Meaning it's possible the TT1 sounded a fraction brighter than TT2. (Although that's postulation, as again that might have been partnering kit.)
To me though, neither Hugo 2 or TT2 are bright. TT2 is just more detailed, more dynamic, and more atmospheric. The only analogy I can think of is, my Meridian Explorer in place of TT1. While it is not comparable with Chord DACs, is sounded smooth, warm, and full. (Compared to Chord it sounds over the top in those qualities.) Why would someone want that?
I imagine the TT1 to have a similar tonality to the other Chord DACs myself. Meaning not over the top in any quality, unlike the Meridian Explorer. Just not as much happening with the sounds on the TT1 compared with the TT2. That makes me thing again. It's like having a system where you spent the same on each piece. DAC, amp, speakers. Then putting in some new speakers costing three times as much. While the
crucial point is the speakers are spot on neutral. Then that person saying they preferred their old speakers. What I mean is, if someone's system can't pair with neutral, what have they done? To me, neutral is the number one priority when buying kit; because then equipment pairs.
However this just seems to me like people saying stuff to get a reaction. Slagging off the TT2, to see who jumps, and has to write another chuffing essay. Since if someone doesn't, then someone else vaguely interested in a TT2 is cruelly put off. … To balance that out, I am not bothered about defending the value of my TT2. That's not why I rebuff these ideas of TT2 sounding bad. The reason behind that is, I will keep my TT2 forever. Or until it gets traded in for a next gen Hugo table-top. It's that good. It will probably get kept and moved about though, if I ever got a TT3 or 4, 5 etc.
Honestly I think if you can't hear the roundness of the TT2, you're not listening right. It is so very round and full bodied, while being excellently detailed. All it sounds like in comparison to lesser DACs to me, is more like music.