Old CD dynamics vs Remastered?

Do you prefer old Compact Discs for the additional dynamic range, or new, remastered CDs for better clarity, though may use more compression?
I prefer to buy used old CDs and accept less fidelity to have more dynamic range.
I also actually prefer the earlier Cds as the remastered often destroy the 'reverb' to facilitate clarity.
(Of course the original LPs are always nice too.
I have nothing against either in general.

Digital remasters of a lot of older material (50s era and earlier) tend to most often deliver new revelations and opens up listening to a lot of otherwise long forgotten recordings that I do not remember ever sounding good in my youth.
Elizabeth - Remasters are cleaner but not necessarily less dynamic. Noise or distortion can often make impression of more vivid sound (clean jazz guitar sounds less dynamic than distorted guitar).
More often than not, I find the originals more pleasing than the remastered versions. Sometimes a remastered version is also remixed and it makes me crazy when a song that I really like doesn't sound the same anymore because someone thought the the new mix would be better.
IMO, the pluses of digitally remastered CDs far outweigh the general tinny non-dynamic sound of earlier recorded CDs. I deliberately seek out the 24 bit digitally remastered CDs. Right now I have Jackson Brown's digitally remasaterd "Fountain of Sorrow" CD playing and it sounds light years better than the original. Guitar licks and bass sound so much better. Same with "For Everyman". This original CD was down right horrible.
Overall dynamic range may be more compressed in general with newer recordings but transients/micro dynamics are often cleaner and better represented which provides a certain degree of liveliness to the music that may not be there in older digital masters. There is also often more energy in the music overall and that also works well with certain kinds of music.

Its a mixed bag much like its always been. In general, I tend to like newer remasters better than older ones, but not always.
The cynical side of me says its just a screw the mug punter for more money by the record companies. Luckily most of the music I like or purchase most does not get to the 'Remugsters' stage.
I usually stick with the originals, funnily enough I was browsing through my albums t'ut other day (for nostalgic purposes only) and came across a half speed copy of Dire Straits LP 'Making Movies' with a price sticker of 10p attached, gawd knows where that album came from.
I think that remastered cd's are just like the commercials on the goggle box that really sound louder than the tv programs, just more in the EQ in the mid band.All IMHO.
I would not categorically discount newer remasters.

I had an older CD copy of Abacab by Genesis. The music was clearly lacking some of the energy and impact that it required to be effective. I picked up the latest remaster and things now sound more like the way they should at least for this kind of music, much more "rocking" rather than laid back MOR in the mixing.
Interesting question, I was playing the Buzzcocks remastered 1st cd the other day and thought what a great time to take another listen to Stiff little fingers greatest hits.(older) The remastered stuff sounds much better in my opinion and can play louder with less digital harshness if you can call it such a thing
Clearly the latest remastered Beatles EMI recordings are superior to earlier issues.
"Clearly the latest remastered Beatles EMI recordings are superior to earlier issues."

I was going to point that out as well.

I think sometimes people just need to stop thinking about what the music sounds like and why and just listen to seek musical satisfaction, however that is achieved.