If you're having to listen to a large number of CDs critically then it's unsurprising that the quality of the sound production is important to you. I wonder whether it is so important to the majority of those who buy CDs. Just as a trained palate will pick out the nuances in a fine wine which the average drinker misses, trained ears will hear things which the average listener doesn't notice.

From the days when Hi-fi was the thing to strive for, most people today seem to be content to listen to MP3s on poor-quality earbuds, often in noisy environments such as trains. Of course there is the argument that the original recording needs to be even higher quality to survive in such an environment, but I am talking about the listener's experience. Furthermore, I suspect that the folk audience is more interested in the quality of the music and is prepared to tolerate imperfections in the sound if the music itself is worthwhile.

If you are considering only those artists who measure themselves by the number of units sold this is only the tip of a very large iceberg. The folk music scene, certainly here in the UK, is now very different. Low-cost recording has allowed people to listen to a much greater range of music, including many very competent musicians who are not sufficiently widely known to get a record deal and who would never be heard outside their local area if we were still reliant on labels. It's true that it also allows a lot of dross to be released, but that's a small price to pay. The audio quality is sometimes poor but is usually good enough to satisfy all but the most demanding listener.