Is there a consensus as to blu ray sound quality?

Thanks Mark, and Kijank, (and everyone)
Let me give one more lame brained, and half assed analogy.
If we're scanning a photo and we have a scanning potential of 'X', then technology changes and we have a scanning potential of 'y' which represents a magnitude of information gathering which is (arbitrarily) 25% greater; the question is, would the picture in the second example look clearer, and more accurate? More data, is more data. The gathering mechanism is the key--of course read error, a nasty thing effects it, but in a linear way--jitter, etc, let's call both of those factors a wash. Let's say that our D/A's are up to the task (at least the same for both, and adequate to the additional information presented by the better read), would this not give us a more realistic presentation of all that is music?
The distance, (if single miked) that exists between the drummer and the bass player, over to the piano, or in an orchestra, the extraordinary amount of complex harmonic structure that exists when multiple violins pay in harmony.

Converting that musical information into a visual medium for the sake of example may be the best way for me to imagine the difference.

Lrsky - You assume that picture that you scan has unlimited resolution. That is not the case here - CD has fixed resolution of 16 bits. Time spacing between bits is fixed and has nothing to do with spacing between players. If the player plays CD without errors and jitter than there is nothing else that can be improved. Jitter itself has nothing to do with harmonic structure or distance but is simply a noise. If you play any singular frequency with jitter you'll get sidebands at very very low level - still audible since not harmonically related to root frequency. Jitter applied to music converts to noise.

In addition Blue Ray players might use separate traditional laser (like SACD do) since their blue laser is optimized for certain depth and other factors.

So,
We're reading every last bit of information that exists on a cd at this moment? I know you say 'fixed at 16 bits'. Realizing that the picture analogy is inaccurate, but just for example, I use that to make the larger point of potentially more data which was not extracted. You're saying emperically that there is no more information to be had from a disc, that that which can be read by a regular, red laser? So the only improvments not in the read domain?

That's what I think. If error correction works and there is no jitter I don't see what else can be improved in reading process.

Higher resolution can be obtained in digital filtering (think averaging)but it stops short of 20-bits because of DACs. In case of traditional DACs better resolution is not possible because of components' tolerance while in case of delta-sigma DACs better resolution is limited by timing accuracy. There are some DACs from TI that are combination of both but without any apparent benefits. DCS introduced long time ago RING DACs that bypass resistors tolerance resolution limit by shuffling constantly many (I think 5)different resitors (of the same value) to get accurate average value of given division.

SACD is a recorded byproduct od delta Sigma modulation before filtering (PWM at 2.8MHz) if I understand it correctly. It supposed be equivalent to 20bit performance at 96kHz. Notice that traditional DAC ICs got eliminated and substituted by one bit DAC (switch) and filtering.

Thanks, Kijanki,
So, in talking to some of the digital 'masters',(people not tapes), their confusion is real in deciding for many years, how to try to improve digital, as it has or had nothing to do with read potential. Some companies in years gone by, using three lasers had to do with external factors such as mechanical issues maybe, say vibrationally induced error read? Was it just hype in your opinion?
When you say "That's what I think", does this mean that the 'jury' is still out?
Reflections on the disc internally, causing, I suspect read error, and interpolation all degrade the sound, but we're working with all known data; so converting to analog is the issue of most 'chance' and degradation?
Years ago I was speaking to Mike (God, what's his name) one of the first at Theta, if not it's founder. He was in his lab when I called, and he was shaking his head trying, in his words, 'to understand why a 22bit dac sounded less like music than a 18bit dac'.

I never at any time in the twenty odd years of reading about digital, thought that we were extracting, correctly, all the data, in time domain, without error. And to that point, have forever wanted to eliminate the mechanical aspects of a cd player, thinking that we were only 'slightly' ahead of a turntable (not from an audio standpoint, but technical standpoint), in that we still had a read mechanism, and a spinning device, which could be (and is) acted on by external, and frankly it's own internal energies. So, to me the question became one of proper time domain sequencing of data through clocking, rather than reading from a spinning device.
This digital mess is as bad as the 'weather' or stock market. It seems that we all know 'something' but none of us really has an answer to how to make a digital disc sound like a SOTA table with a Zeta Arm, and a Koetsu Rosewood cartridge of 24 years ago, or today, for that matter. Viva, la ticks and pops, no Kijanki? HA!