Remasters - are they better? What exactly is it?

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.

There are plenty of examples of remasters that better earlier or original masterings. That includes remasters with DRs as good as or sometimes better than earlier versions. Remasters by engineers Hoffman and Gastwirt are the first that come to mind but there are plenty of others.

A bit of research will bear this out. Any new "older" CD I buy goes through a research process that includes remasterings, dynamic range and other factors that allow me to buy the best. Often the original releases are best. But often they are not.

@dtximages 

"un-dynamic" recordings aren't typically thought of as soiunding "thin". If anything because all vocals and instrumentation is more level-equalized it can have a "thicker" sound. 

As far as telling the decade of a recording by the quality, nope. Plenty of old recordings (last 40 years anyway) equal or better newer recordings, and the opposite is also true. How do I know? I have them in my collection.