Remasters - are they better? What exactly is it?


What exactly is the process to remaster.  Not the FULL 10 page answer but just in general.  What is being tweaked?  Why can't I hear a bigger difference?  Old recordings (through Tidal) seem to sound essentially the same as the original.  But I've also not done an exhaustive a/b test either.

Anyway, do you skip the "Remastered" titles or seek them out?
dtximages
Post removed 
If you were weaned on 80’s or later pop recordings, please don’t post. ~<:-P

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.
There’s a huge difference in sound quality between recordings in any era. If by newer stuff you mean the moronic millennial whoop that passes for music today, then please do us a favor and don’t post about sound quality. THERE IS NONE!!!

As far as equipment, the better it is, the better good recordings sound.
Systems must be neutral. If they impose their coloration, only a small subset of recordings will sound acceptable thereupon.

I have CDs of recordings going back to the 30’s. Some of them are every bit as engaging as anything recorded today. Frank Sinatra’s "Songs for Swinging Lovers" recorded January 1956 in mono emotes every bit as much as Nora Jones or Diana Krall or ??? The Andrews Sisters collection kicks the proverbial butt. Joe Pass sits front and center in the media room. Queen Will Rock You.

someone who claims to be a sound engineer
https://www.discogs.com/artist/273206-Ian-Eales
I quit because I couldn’t stand the grooveless computer crap. In that era, computers were 1½ orders of magnitude worse time wise than good musicians. There just wasn’t enough shellac...

To my ears the apex of recorded sound is now Blu-Ray audio discs..... no compression and a full frequency spectrum.
Oddly enough, not every recording shines as brightly on Blu-ray, as evidenced by the first Fleetwood Mac album to include Buckingham-Nicks.....to me the sound is clear but individual instruments in the mix don't sound as nuanced.... more like a "wall" (is this a secret of their popularity.....it's made for any system...including lo-fi car radios?).
Anyway, to hear Giles Martin's Beatles on Blu-ray is to approximately experience them for the first time.....with dynamics so immediate I find myself involuntarily sitting upright in my seat during certain passages...not unlike a live show.
Can the record companies recoup the high costs to provide this medium....I doubt it, unless the album was an enormous best seller to start with.
Not wanting to start a fight or anything Blu Ray discs oft suffer the same aggressive dynamic range compression as any other digital format, including CD, hi res downloads, SACD, whatever. Check it out on the Dynamic Range Database.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Beatles+&album=Abbey+Road
I have noticed though, that when I buy the original version, it turns out that the remaster was better. Whenever I buy the remaster, it turns out the original was better. 

….hmmm....