"D. Stephen Heersink" wrote: >I don't mind reviewers mentioning that a recording matches, if not >surpasses, the higher-cost recording, but I do resent very competitive >recordings being reviewed in the context of its cost, e.g., "this is worth >the low cost for sampling the repertoire." Actually, I don't object to the >latter, except that it is almost universally used leaving this reader >uncertain whether the recording merits a place in my library or whether >this is junk, but good junk for the price. Sadly, the latter is too often >the case. Junk is a subjective term. In the UK where I live full price CDs now cost $26. I simply cannot afford to pay this if I am going to purchase a significant number of CDs. I now have over 4000 cds in my collection which means that each gets played only once in a blue moon. So I would rather have a CD on the shelf of slightly below the very best than an empty space. Take the Prokofiev piano concertos on Naxos for example. These sound great too me. But, a major Prokofiev fan would probably be able to point to several full price versions that are better. So, major works and Haydn excepted, I'll continue to buy to a budget and that means due consideration to Naxos. I believe that a CD price war is coming and the majors will be forced to reduce there prices soon. But without the budget labels they would continue ripping us off. Bob Draper [log in to unmask]