Is there a consensus as to blu ray sound quality?

As I understand the question, you are asking if people believe the sound quality of Blu-Ray is superior to other digital formats, and therefore if it will make other digital formats obsolete.

Correct?

I was simply pointing to the fact that aural superiority of a format is no guarantee of the longevity of the format...even from the company that was at the vanguard.

I know my take on the discussion is tangential.

Rightoo Tvad.
Since the soft ware for our primary listening, (Winston Ma's are in short supply unfortunately)are redbook with limited other's in various states of supply I want to know, is there a new 'game' out there that allows us to extract 'more' from them? As pointed out quite well by Kijanki,(though he may have erred in his math on the one post) and he certainly trumps any pretense of my digital knowledge, we're limited by the amount of data on the CD's to 'x' bits of information.
I was under the illusion, (make that dillusion) that we might be able to extract more 'base data' by a better read mechanism, i.e. the blu-ray which is far more sophistocated in terms of pure functionality. Now, I am to understand that the benefits of the blu-ray are almost exclusively advantageous for only reading 'more data for programming not more data for listening'.
This is disappointing to me.
Years ago, in conversations with the long departed John Iverson (of Eagle not Stereophile) who designed the Eagle Amplifiers and other than Jim Thiel, may be the smartest engineer I have ever met; I was told that we were in for something much greater (keep in mind that this was in perhaps 1984 '85, not long after CD's came into the public domain, ((run on sentence)) ), when a 'better laser was developed. He then said that the 'blue laser' would be the next step.
I contended that eliminating a mechanical read altogether, as in time domain digital release, would be infinitely better. He agreed, but said that the issues of that would take years to sort out, after all, and he said, and I quote, "After all, we aren't the Krell", in a reference to D'Agistino's fav sci fi Forbidden Planet's race of advanced civilization on the planet Altair (2, 3, 4, whatever), who had developed miraculously superior 'toys'of the future.
He, though right in some ways, was perhaps wrong about this. I've waited almost a quarter of a century for this to find out that it's principal advantage is that we can hear Ron Howard and Tom Hanks discuss his make up, or have the latest incarnations of a simultaneous video game release included on our movies. DRAT!!
Somebody give us hope that this isn't all that blu-ray portends.

I own many CDs that sound incredibly good. Really. They are a pleasure to hear, and they bring many hours of musical enjoyment.

I remain convinced that the quality of any CD (or SACD, or DVD-A, or LP, or...) lies more in the excellence of the recording and mastering process than it does in the delivery medium.

In fact, so many of my CDs sound great that I often cannot understand the deep desire many audiophiles have for "better".

I just purchased a new CD that sounds terrific: Jerry Bergonzi's "Tenorist" with John Abercrombie.

Grant,
So do I--and ironically, some are the oldest among the recordings. Nancy Wilson, circa 1962, her comming out album with Cannonball, is terrific. (This is right before some engineers discovered all those wonderful 'knobs' on the control panel, and when they stupidly turned on the mics and simply said 'Columbia, Nancy Wilson, Cannonball Adderley, Save Your Love For Me, 'Take one')."
Also of that ilk are some of the classic Nat Cole albums. Some were buried in 'echo', but for the most part, he was out front and unspoiled. Only in his more commercial recordings was the 'magic' of his voice spoiled.
There are many wonderful recordings, I guess I'm just an audiophile malcontent, always wanting something more.

Years ago I said to a friend, who was a conductor of some renown, "Wouldn't it have been wonderful to have heard Mozart's very own rendition, playing or conducting of his own work from the 18th century? (Alcohol may have been involved with that one.)
He said, "Umm, no. If we had heard that then maybe we wouldn't have had so many beautiful interpretations."
Gosh, that, I thought was a brilliant perspective. Of course, he being a conductor, could appreciate musical license more than most of us.