Remasters - are they better? What exactly is it?

On some albums, I have 6+ different versions. DSOTM comes to mind, where I have the Black Triangle CD, the Sony Mastersound. the regular CD, MoFi vinyl digitized 24/96, the 1992 remaster, the 2011 remaster, the UHQR 180 gr vinyl digitized . . . it’s nuts. Same with WYWH, Brain Salad Surgery and Close To The Edge. I keep telling myself that I am going to listen to them once and for all, determine which sound best and get rid of the other ones, but I never do <sigh>. (BTW, did you know that when MoFi originally got the analog master tape of DSOTM to do the MoFi pressing, they BROKE THE TAPE! Yes, true story). On a slightly different note, on the Hoffman Forums, someone posted a sample of each of the several DSOTM recordings and you had to download them and rank them in order. Then the OP posted what recording each number corresponded to. With DSOTM, I preferred the Sony Mastersound over all of them. It is an interesting test, because you can’t be influenced by your expectations regarding which one wis going to sound better. Definitely worth taking the challenge.

dtximages--you may be right.  If I were you I would install more locks on my doors and possibly hire round-the-clock security

 The first series of Classic Records RCA reissues cut directly from the master tape with very little EQ or change.  Listeners were unhappy because they did not hear "better" versions of what they were intimately familiar with !  What they received was actually closer to the master tape, but we deemed inferior !   Classic incorporated some of the original EQ in subsequent reissues.

What idTENt decided to leave off mastering EQ?

Back in the day when the distribution media was vinyl, mix engineers backed up from the disc knowing it would add a bit of coloration.

It was sometimes a hassle with new acts because they did not understand that what they heard in the control room or a from a cassette in their car was not the 'finished' product. We called it "Fixing it in the stores"

I know there are many worthy candidates that I'm not thinking of at the moment but I have to agree with those who have mentioned Terry Jacks'"Seasons in the Sun."  That is one special record.

So this is pretty interesting.  I always kinda thought compression always equals "bad".  Why would I want a compressed anything other than space savings?  

But, I can see where compression is used in the studio to make quiet things sound louder and giving an overall "fuller" sound, whether it's actually fuller or not is debatable, but it's perceived that way.  

I would generally say I like all my music as uncompressed as possible.  Let me feel those dynamics, BUT, the it was really more fatness that I was after.  

I don't like a lot of Classical music because it goes from SO quiet, to so loud.. Then stays SO quiet for 5 mins then gets huge..  I want to hear the quiet parts more and not have to breath softly to hear.  

So am I right that in the recording world, compression is often used to make average ears happier?