CD sound quality: original pressings vs regular remaster vs MFSL, etc


I'm expanding my music collections and acquiring/reacquiring many very old works e,g, Cat Stevens, Traffic, Moody Blues, Coltrane/Miles Davis/Brubeck, and some classical and newer popular works as well.

Does it matter much whether the disk I get is "original" older pressing, or a remastered version?  Or a MFSL?

I remember CDs were unlistenable first 5-10 years, but no idea if that was the disk or the players and not sure I'd run across any used CDs that old anyway.

Thanks for your time.
berner99
I have a lot of late 60's and on rock in the original vinyl. As time went on and my turntable wasn't hooked up I would buy the early CD releases of the same albums. What I noticed was the early CD releases from the mixed for vinyl masters were mostly horrible. When the same albums' remastered CD's were released I would buy those and for the most part they were pretty good. I especially liked the HDCD versions (I have a player that decodes them). I haven't delved into some of the other Hi-Rez formats so can't comment.

When redbook CD's were released from mixed for CD masters the quality was pretty good (until we got to the Loudness Wars as others have stated) and I think then you were looking for specific pressings, usually from different countries, (also, as others have pointed out). 

I think as time went on improvements in digital recording and playback equipment also played a significant role but I don't know of a specific time frame when there was a sea change that could be pointed to.
As @stilljim stated, some of the early US CDs were incorrectly mastered using the RIAA equalization for vinyl records. These CDs were pressed and sold by retailers. I believe these discs were recalled, but in any event, this hurt the public's experience with the new format.
These albums were then mastered and released using the proper EQ for the digital standard. 


I find one cannot generalize on whether an original, a remaster or a audiophile version of a particular title is the best . I CAN generalize that when the mastering is brickwalled, avoid it like the plague. Sometimes the remasters are simply compressed and LOUD. What is the point of having a format that allows for much more dynamics than the LP to be so compressed? So do not assume just because a title is remastered that it will sound better than the original issue on CD. And there are many audiophile titles that are not as good as their regular issue counterpart. It is all in the mastering techniques and the sources used. It is hit and miss. It may take a LOT of research to find the pressings that you would prefer over the others. (the ones that have been almost universally recognized as the best typically are expensive).

I feel for the "remastered" hype too many times. I have the 2008 Moody Blues remastered/expanded series. They HURT my ears, very harsh and grainy. I have ended up seeking out older issues on many CDs because of my foolish mistakes. 
I have the 2008 Moody Blues remastered/expanded series. They HURT my ears, very harsh and grainy. I have ended up seeking out older issues on many CDs because of my foolish mistakes.
Just like I said above compressed loud s**t, get the one with the most "green squares" (usually the oldest) click on it for the cat no. search it on ebay for a $5 used one.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Moody+Blues&album=Days+Of+Future+Passed

Cheers George
I have several Moody Blue remasters on CD and they all sound great.  Should not be hurting the ears if all is well.