Phil Collins Remasters

I agree with @shadorne . Rock remasters compared to the originals typically provide less dynamic range due to compression, less extended bass, less separation of instruments. Then there are the remasters that have tipped-up highs. 
Of course, many early CD's were of poor quality and needed remastering.

IME, a good Redbook setup can reveal high quality sound from original CD's. If tape hiss bothers you, then go with a remaster.

One need look no further than the Offical Dynamic Range Database to see the progressive onslaught of aggressive dynamic range compression that has been occurring for the last 20 years. This is true for not only CDs but also vinyl and even SACD and even the once proud SHD Japanese remastered AND hi res downloads. If one is not entirely happy with a particular remaster it is often due to overly aggressive compression. Music is dynamics. Thou shall not compress Zeppelin. Thou shall not compress Stones. Thou shall not compress Dylan or Beatles.

If things aren’t bad enough already they even overly compress the original releases. Stones, Dylan, Radiohead, what have you. ☹️

dr.loudness-war.info

@geoffkait , after years of buying over-compressed CD's and vinyl, I've been using Discogs to find original Rock releases. In most cases, I've found that German pressings sound best and are of the highest quality. Also Japanese, but they often remaster the US originals.

I’ve oft wondered about that. That is I wondered how the Japanese were able to obtain the original tapes. Do they just give them out to anyone who asks?

To answer my own question, no the remaster is not as good as the original CD - it is terribly apparent on "In the Air Tonight" when the drums kick in, it doesn't slam nearly like the original.

I've come up with a general assumption that's been helpful:
60s/70s records, get the remasters
80s/90s records, get the original CD