" It sounds like this isn’t as simple a process as I’d hoped for, that is, putting a disc in the spinner and having it play back the SACD layer in unconverted DSD format. Experimenting with my system as it stands, I actually like the CD layer better (it’s a little warmer and less shrill), but it’s running through entirely different processing than the SACD layer, which relies on Cambridge Audio’s own onboard DAC chips instead of my outboard DAC. I do have the system set to read the SACD layer in stereo, so it is presumably the PCM conversion I'm hearing through the speakers."
That's really good observation. For the most part, you're correct, but I would add a bit more to it. When SACD first came out, most of us did the same thing, myself included. We all bought reasonably priced SACD players to try out the format. Most of us were underwhelmed with the results. And the reason turned out to be fairly simple. Did I really expect the mass market Sony 9000ES player I bought for SACD's to outperform my 10k Wadia? I did, and that's why I bought the thing to begin with, but it turns out that the superior format, by itself, can't overcome certain obstacles. We're not talking about comparing records to CD's. The difference between CD and SACD isn't that big. A well designed CD player can easily outperform a run of the mill SACD player.
Taking the above into consideration, this is what I would add to your post. You're not considering the analog portion of whatever dac/cd player you're listening to. Yes, the difference may be due to technical factors on the digital side of things. But its just as likely the differences you are hearing are due to the analog portions of the dac and disc player. Its all to easy to forget that the A in DAC, is half of the component, and it should be treated as such.
My advice would be to focus on what you listen to the most. If you listen to 90% CD's, focus on that. Get Redbook playback right first. Once you have that settled, then explore other formats if they interest you. But whatever you do, don't go after new formats at the expense of others.
That's really good observation. For the most part, you're correct, but I would add a bit more to it. When SACD first came out, most of us did the same thing, myself included. We all bought reasonably priced SACD players to try out the format. Most of us were underwhelmed with the results. And the reason turned out to be fairly simple. Did I really expect the mass market Sony 9000ES player I bought for SACD's to outperform my 10k Wadia? I did, and that's why I bought the thing to begin with, but it turns out that the superior format, by itself, can't overcome certain obstacles. We're not talking about comparing records to CD's. The difference between CD and SACD isn't that big. A well designed CD player can easily outperform a run of the mill SACD player.
Taking the above into consideration, this is what I would add to your post. You're not considering the analog portion of whatever dac/cd player you're listening to. Yes, the difference may be due to technical factors on the digital side of things. But its just as likely the differences you are hearing are due to the analog portions of the dac and disc player. Its all to easy to forget that the A in DAC, is half of the component, and it should be treated as such.
My advice would be to focus on what you listen to the most. If you listen to 90% CD's, focus on that. Get Redbook playback right first. Once you have that settled, then explore other formats if they interest you. But whatever you do, don't go after new formats at the expense of others.