Why is most everything remastered?

With two DAC's in place, a chip and an R2R, the A/B between is somewhat shocking. Remasters from Qobuz through Roon sound tuned for the chip DAC and when played through the R2R, the horror!

I keep the R2R in NOS mode and what is heard when 44.1 comes through is far more pleasing. My selections are now curated to the original 44.1 when I have the choice and wish the selection was available between the two when adding albums to my library.

So many reasons to remaster with many not being worth the time to chase down but many are well worth it. Depends on who is doing the remastering and why. Some of the older recordings are damaged to some degree and need remastering to rebuild what was there. Some were terribly mastered to begin with and maybe it is not totally correct to remaster it so it sounds better but I certainly appreciate that and some are butchered to sound like what they believe the masses are looking for, those I try to stay clear of. One begins to know who to chase down and look for their remastering.

I sure don't agree with the Giles Martin remixes not sounding good-I think they are fantastic.  Sgt Pepper sounds as though a veil is removed and Abbey Road has brought some buried parts forward that are nice to hear. 

I agree that Sgt. Pepper has a great amount of detail that has been revealed. It's more lively, noise-free with clarity, and a judicious use of compression. However, I find the overall timbre to be lean and thin in the highs. The type of tipped-up high-end found on earlier remasters. If these issues were addressed I would call this remaster a masterpiece.

Don’t forget most of the music released in the 50’s and 60’s was meant to sound good on a 3" car speaker or mono record player.