Why is most everything remastered?

Remastering is a pretty broad term. Some remasters are actually remixes using the multitracks or stems from them. But in any case, it's down to the taste and equipment used by the mastering engineer. Even back in the analogue days there were quite substantial difference in sound between LPs depending on where they were mastered and cut. It was not uncommon for US and European records to be cut from different generations of mastertape. As well as generational issues other factor in remasterings is the fact that the mastertapes (assuming that the original master and not a copy of it is actually available). Tape deterioriation can apply to early digital recordings as well as analogue since the latter were tape based - DASH and VCR based systems like the PCM F1. However, for recordings that were originally mastered to digital from one inch 30ips Studer/Otari etc. analogue machines, there is the potential for remastering on modern ADC's to make a very substantial improvement in SQ.

@tylermunns 

"ideally, communities like like this one can help music fans discern which releases are worth buying"

This is what the Steve Hoffman site is purportedly focused upon. However, what I've encountered over there is that participants fail to disclose their systems and so, discussions are focused entirely upon comparing one mastering to another, as though everyone is listening through the same system, in the same room, which doesn't make sense to me. 

@elliottbnewcombjr RIAA is not part of the discussion. It’s been a standard for a long time and not a variable regarding the remastered vs. original. What I referred to was the the actual production process for making LP’s and the practice of making an eq’d Dub that LP’s in the past were often made from. I have no idea of the percentage of releases used these dubs, or if it was mostly on rock/pop recordings. Also for popular albums that sold well, multiple pressing plants were used in different regions of the country and world. Each of these plant’s received a dub to master from, which would be second or third generation or worse.

A new mastering today could more likely come from the master itself. In any instance it’s highly unlikely a new mastering would use the old technique of a specially eq’d vinyl dub that was meant to keep LP’s from skipping, etc. on mass market turntables/carts of the past. 

@audioguy85

"I'm amazed how many 1950-1960's treasures I've found in the thrift stores. Nothing can compare to the sound of these old records. The engineers knew what they were doing back then, a lost art, gone forever....scoop up that old vinyl."

Yes, there must have been some very talented folk working on the production side back in those days.

Those records might be going cheap nowadays, but at the time they were quite expensive prestidge items. It's no exaggeration to say that some of them sound fabulous.

Especially many of those recorded with a string section. It was almost an art form in itself.

@cd318

"Those records might be going cheap nowadays, but at the time they were quite expensive prestidge items."

betterrecords.com is selling some of these records for hundreds of dollars...even on ebay the prices are sometimes crazy. I like it when I find some of these old records still in great shape in the thrift store for a buck. They are getting a bit harder to find In good shape, as a lot of them have been trashed. I’ll never understand how someone could have been so careless with some of these gems.

Just a few examples,  got a NM Sheherazade Fritz Reiner RCA white dog pressing for 12 bucks on Discogs.  Today, at local thrift store, I picked up a vg++ to NM copy of Capital records rainbow  -mono-  Carousel, with a young Shiley Jones, one dollar.