Is remastered mainly just less jitter?

Five pages of The Rolling Stones releases, again early stuff was the least compressed, SACD is not so good, and DSD lovers will get a reality check here.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/1?artist=Rolling+Stones

Cheers George

Agreed - it is a  crap-shoot,  crap shoot, or at least a  crapshoot.

Find a ratings list, then see if you can try before you buy - if not be prepared to re-sell the crappy ones, or shoot at them as targets

My experience is that remasters sound worse. I think newer A/D is probably far superior. But even when they don't try to increase the loudness, I think they sound worse. The highly acclaimed, latest remaster of the self titled Dire Straits from Japan is lacking some of the voice and instrumental timber of the original CD release that I listen to on Tidal. My theory is that the 40 year old master tapes have degraded, so you'll never be able to make a better release. 

.... less jitter?

Who knows. The re-clocking with the laser burners slows down the production rate significantly and the result is, what nobody wants: higher production costs.
There are so many ways to make a CD worse (or the master) there are endless reasons  to make a reissue. But the main reason for me is to make money again and again.
I seriously think (with a few exceptions) when you want the most natural sound on a CD, look for one of the first releases, beginning of 90's, those are pretty good.

I listen to Classical exclusively.  The remastering are almost always superior.  There are none of the loudness issues.  From what I have read the biggest reason for the improvement is that early CD issues of analog recordings featured 14 bit ADCs.  Also several Conductors liked to diddle with the knobs in the control booth and did a lot of damage, so going back to the earlier mixes was restorative in and of  itself