Is there a consensus as to blu ray sound quality?

"Is there hope that the typical audiophile out there can buy a $399 blue ray, and end up with sound quality which is better than even the very expensive (red laser) cd players which are audiophile grade?"

I'm confused. Are you asking about using it as a transport or player? If player, then there is a lot of other thing affecting sound. If you want to use it as a transport to play redbook CDs then you'll get perhaps a little better tracking but you can get it as well with DVD player.

Thanks Kijanki,
But I am aware of the breadth of variables which effect sound reproduction.

"If you want to use it as a transport to play redbook DCs then you'll perhaps get a little better tracking, but you can get it as well with a DVD player."

The shorter wave length of the blu-violet light spectrum laser, versus the red end of the light spectrum (endemic to the typical CD and DVD players, until the advent of blu-ray) have a stated wavelength of approximately, and it varies, 400nm compared to 650nm.
This shorter wave length would seem, at least to my little brain, to not only, not only allow for more compression of information onto the disc, but to also allow for a 'better read' of the existing information on a typical red book cd. If the laser successfully reads more data, wouldn't this, or shouldn'this translate into greater information taken into the processor, allowing for greater resolution of detail, low level resolution, with all of the mentioned benefits therein?
Analogous to a moving coil cartridge, whose claim to fame was that it could navigate more quickly within the grooves of the record, (with less mass to the tip of the stylus) picking up more information from the source, a vinyl piece in those days. Wouldn't a 'quicker, more adroit read' make for more low level resolution, more detail, improved harmonic structure, better soundstage, spatial information, and such...what is it that I am not understanding, or unable to convey to those answering the question here?
While it is true that 'better cd players and dvd players' offer better, 'tracking as Kijanki called it'; all things being equal wouldn't a more powerful telescope (think quicker better reading laser) read more data?

I would have thought that some manufacturers of fine cd players would have jumped on the blue laser for their audiophile cd players, early on. Since they appear not to have done so, does anyone know why. Is the liscencing for the new laser cost prohibitive, or are there other issues which haven't been brought to light?

Also, would the additional 1's and 0's read' does the additional amount of information require a different sampling, or higher quality, read faster D/A converters?

Hopefully someone who is in manufacturing can help educate me on this question as to whether or not the blue laser, as it is superior would be be a bette device for simply retrieving more data from a redbook.

Thanks.

All other things being equal, which is always a big assumption, I see no reason why a blue laser would read a redbook CD any better than a red laser. The fact that it has a shorter wavelength and can read "more" data in a given area doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that it reads "better". I think that differences in the DA conversion would be more critical than differences in the laser's colour frequency. To use an analogy, (which may or may not be appropriate but I'll try it anyway), do your eyes see blue objects more clearly than red objects on the basis that the blue receptors in your eye pigments are more resolving?

I would think that it is discs with more data that makes blu-ray appealing as an audio format. I would guess that this would become more common in parallel with blu-ray's development and adoption as a video format.

Mark,

I think in this example, we should make the general assumption that 'more' IS better. Let's look at it this way. Less would almost universally have to be thought of as 'worse'. If the goal is to gather as many of the 1's an 0's as is possible, and the stated value of the shorter wavelength blue laser is that it can, hence it can read information more closely crammed together in the new blu-ray format, then it would also mean to me, if I can take a logical step here, that it reads more of the existing, again.

The only reason that blue lasers weren't used from the beginning, was (I was told by several inside folks, designers) was that none were available. No one ever doubted the advantage of the blue laser, they just didn't exist.

Certainly discs with mega information on them, makes blu-rays very desirable, I am just still wondering about it's other intrisic values as an audio tool.

Lrsky - Redbook is fixed at 16 bit and the only thing that better transport provides is lower jitter. Better laser resolution does nothing if overall quality doesn't follow. Many factors affect player's performance and SACD players, for example, are not the best redbook CD players. They have separate laser assemblies for each format but designer probably concentrated on SACD part more. Same might be true with Blue Ray. If you plan to use it as a transport than it might be better to get cheap DVD player and jitter suppressing DAC like Benchmark DAC1 or Bel Canto DAC3.

Such DACs have resolution of 24bits but redbook is defined as 16-bit (as well as HDCD and SACD).