Why are so many albums poorly remastered onto cd

It would be interesting to find out exactly how HD Tracks gets there Hi Rez stuff. Are they taken from original masters and remastered? Are the tracks just cleverly upsampled? Why are there differences in quality? I have seen some mainstream reviews claiming the Redbook CD sounds better the HD Track 24/96 or 24/192 issues.

Just curious. I'd like to know for sure before I buy.

Wouldn't it make since to remaster the originals before releasing them as HI Def? After all a bad sounding recording is going to stay a bad sounding recording whether it is Redbook, 24/96 or 24/192 isn't it?

There's this about HD Tracks:http://www.itrax.com/Pages/ArticleDetails.php?aID=32

And I thought the 'butterfly effect' had only to do with random, unintended consequences, not intentional ones.

All the best,
Nonoise

I also read that the latest Beatles release that was so highly touted as Hi Rez is merely a 24 bit remastering of the master tapes that was down converted to 16 bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(The_Beatles_album) see Remastering section

That's the extent of the purity of the latest Beatles CDs or downloads and yet most reviews go over the top claiming Hi Rez, but is it? The sound is better but their not getting blood out of a stone, just a damn good 16 bit recording.

Go figure. (If I misread or misunderstood the article, please set me straight)

There was a FLAC version on USB thumb drive in 44.1/24 but that's the extent of Hi Rez that the public got.

Marketing has its place.

All the best,
Nonoise

Your point makes sense, thanks Nonoise.

Many remastered CD's do sound inferior to the original, but there are many that actually sound better.