Early pressings v remastered

Thanks for the responses. I've noticed lately as I've compared what I thought were excellent remasters head to head with early pressings of the same albums of 30 to 50 year old vintage, there is a presence to the original recordings that the remasters can't seem to capture even if the remasters sound great absent that comparison. Sometimes certain aspects of the recording are actually better in the remasters due to adjustments in the process----but as to the overall sound, I very often prefer the early issue. Also, as Ralph says, it's usually best to obtain an early pressing from the country in which the record was recorded. Makes for much time spent at the used record shop.

When you find a reissue which sounds really great, you can bet your house, the original one will be first rate, too. On the other side, when the first mastering was done average, you will have problems to find a remaster which is really top.
Bob Dylan [Freewheelin', Oh Mercy], Cat Stevens, Muddy Waters are some examples for Remaster Hype but when you go for the Original, you will be impressed, too.
When you compare, don't go for the obvious like more Bass or boosted voice, try to find out what happened with the overall - tonal - Balance, the Originals got the ok from the Artist, it was done the way he wanted it.
See MFSL Muddy Waters and the same from Classic Records. Here the MFSL is simply like a fist in your face.
Remasters make sense when the original is hard to get or super expensive, but in general it is business only. All you can do, is to ask yourself, which remaster labels really care (Classic Records, Chad Kassem, Japanese labels) and which ones do remaster without any (more or less) authentic standard compared to the original (Speakers Corner, Simply Vinyl...).
There aren't so many behind the mixing desk today who really know what to do. Most lost their jobs in the 90's (or retired) and this kind of "Art" can't be learned again. A lot of knowledge is buried now. Storage of Tapes is also a special chapter, the loss of information (mainly in the higher frequencies) is fact.
But, money makes the world go round and that's it. Each his own.

Of course as Syntax stated, there is a cost factor involved here. If you happen to inherit a bunch of older pressings such as i have than you are lucky. Original Stereo releases from the 60's are hard to come by and the cost, wow....if in good playing condition you will be looking to spend easily over $100 for an original pressing. Especially old blues or Jazz recordings. I recently picked a copy of a 1965 stereo BLUE NOTE pressing of Herbie Hancock's "Empyrean Isles" for an even $100.00 in very good playing shape. To digreess a bit, this record was actually used by CBC radio in Vancouver. A vendor in town had purchased a huge CBC collection in the past year. Anyways the sound is very laid back and neutral compared to the brighter crisper sound of the 2 record 45/180 g which brings out greater detail. To many be a bit over bearing. And like what has been said over and over, what do you prefer?