Remasters - are they better? What exactly is it?

Awesome info from everyone.  For those whom I disagree'd with, I'm mainly just playing devil's advocate.

Like I wish so badly that Elvis's old stuff was a little more "oomphy".. NOT electronica hip hop fakery, but just more "crank up-ability" (im struggling for words here).

Here's an example..  Elton John "Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me"....

Original recording: ehhh boring, not going to make me stand up and clap. But his newer live versions at Madison Square Garden, ohhhh yeah... It gets my adrenaline pumping.

Here's a better example yall are going to kill me for.

"The Weight" by The Band sounds bland and uninvolving compared to Marty Stuarts newer version which I actually like alot better.  

Ok so, when I'm flipping through Tidal and I see both albums, I'm usually/generally better off sticking to the original.  

I do wish we could take some older un-dynamic albums where things sound thin and add some oomph to them.  Like, cranking up the Beatles is usually not worth it.. No slam or low bass and drums sound like my play kit I had i the garage as a kid.

You can pretty much tell what decade something was recording by the quality of the recording.

Yeah, ok so...  I cannot find any older recording (50s 60s 70s and most 80s) that dig that low or that have "involving" bass like you might hear from albums by Celtic Women, Hans Zimmer, Celine Dion, Adele, etc.  

Those albums will really test a subwoofer.  When I crank up a Rolling Stones, I feel the sound is thinner or more shrill.. Like it was recorded as cheaply as possible and it's just not "rock" feeling (in general).

It seems like newer recordings are much fatter/fuller, crisp/detailed, and present.

Also, listening to old Bob Dylan albums, the guitar is nowhere near as "wow that's nice sounding" as say Mumford and Sons or John Mayer.

@ieales  No it's nonsense to say you cannot tell around what decade a recording is from.  Old recordings just sound different.  They generally sound like they're being played through an old hifi system or they literally sound like a recording of an LP.  There's very little slam, lots of noise, sounds like AM radio bascially.

That's NOT to say there aren't some good sounding older albums.  I get that.  But there's a clear difference..

It sounds like the difference is two things:

1. Older recordings were meant for "lesser" hifi systems or mediums that couldn't produce much bass or crystal clear highs so they didn't push it.  

2. Remasters can be better or worse depending.. Kinda what I figured.  

Again, go take any old Elvis album and see if you're shaking the rafters in your house.  Then take any album of almost any genre recorded post 2000 and you'll find much more "richness" to the sound.  As if everything in the recording path is just better.. Better mics, cables, mixing equipment, and MUCH better hifi systems.

I'm just not sure how someone can disagree that there's not a huge difference in the sound of older stuff vs newer stuff..  Maybe you like that old nostalgic sound.. If you do, I'd say save your money on great audio equipment though because it matters much less.

So this is pretty interesting.  I always kinda thought compression always equals "bad".  Why would I want a compressed anything other than space savings?  

But, I can see where compression is used in the studio to make quiet things sound louder and giving an overall "fuller" sound, whether it's actually fuller or not is debatable, but it's perceived that way.  

I would generally say I like all my music as uncompressed as possible.  Let me feel those dynamics, BUT, the it was really more fatness that I was after.  

I don't like a lot of Classical music because it goes from SO quiet, to so loud.. Then stays SO quiet for 5 mins then gets huge..  I want to hear the quiet parts more and not have to breath softly to hear.  

So am I right that in the recording world, compression is often used to make average ears happier?