Digital remasters - do they sound better or ..?

[Shadrach]

I've got some very good remastered albums. I wouldn't get too hung up on DR readings. The loss of a point or two in dynamic range readings may not be the end of the world if you can now hear something that was inaudible, or wrongly placed before.
Some of the stuff I like to listen to didn't have much dynamic range to start with.
I've yet to find anything better for the Reprise recordings of Jimi Hendrix for example but A&M did a good job on Nils Lofgren's Cry Tough.
A lot depends on who did the remaster and why and to some extent the label that issues them.
Most of my MFSL albums sound better to my ears than the originals.
Some of the AFZ remasters are pretty decent.
I haven't trusted HD Tracks since they got caught upsampling redbook.
I prefer to rip CDs rather than download.
I view the streaming services much like I did transistor radios years ago; great to find new music but often not the quality I want to listen to on my stereo system.
Remasters; you need to dig for the provenance information before parting with your money.

 

[glooka]

I wanted to find out differences betwen original CDs and remasters, so I downloaded some original Pink Floyd CDs from the 80's and new 192/24 remasters and ABXed them on Foobar, listening with my Sennheiser HD600. Result: they sounded the same to my ears.

 

[LouB]

Are there any bands, producers, sound engineers who mastered the originals & have commented on the remasters ?