[1] What I was trying to say is that there was a limit to how much compression etc when processing power was limited to analog equipment or 16 bit digital. In other words, the greater processing power could and is (in many cases) abused.
[2] What I (and Sonic Truth, I think) were getting at is that many or most of these flat transfer CDs subjectively sound better than their later remasters simply because they were a flat transfer without any futzing or attempt to make them louder and more compressed/limited.
1. There were always limits and the history/evolution of popular music genres from the 1960's onwards is largely dependent on abusing them. Arguably the biggest and most obvious such abuse was with the electric guitar in the 1960's, where over-driving guitar amps/cabs not just to the point of distortion but so massively beyond the point of distortion that pretty much the only thing being output was distortion! Compared to that, the amount of distortion from the loudness wars is relatively small, so why is the former not only acceptable but desirable and the latter so objectionable? The simple answer is age/generation! The guitar distortion wasn't acceptable, in fact it was so unacceptable that to my mother Hendrix didn't even qualify as music, it was just a horrible noise! And, a least in part, that is why I liked Hendrix, it was cool and radical, music specifically for my generation and not for older generations but of course now, I'm a member of the "older generations" and some contemporary popular music/genres I like, while to me, some of it barely even qualifies as music and some just sounds like bad music, packed with incompetent mistakes. Probably the old time engineers thought it sounded like an incompetent mistake when they heard guitar feedback back in the '60's. And, guitar distortion is just one of COUNTLESS examples, the same thing happened in the late '70's and early '80's with (analogue) compressors/limiters, over-driven to the point of destruction. In fact the last great analogue compressor (the Distressor, in the mid 1990's) was based on the sound characteristics of several previous vintage compressors and had a setting which emulated the hugely over driven compressors of the late '70's. The setting was called "Nuke", which should tell you all you need to know about what it did to sound quality!!
In other words, your statement is effectively true, the advance in technology (processing power and the algorithms that took advantage of it) could be abused, exactly the same as just about all music technology advances have always been abused since at least the mid '60's. Why should contemporary musicians and engineers not be allowed to do what previous generations of musicians and engineers did? If the response is "because older generations don't like it or think it's a mistake", that's about as counter-productive an argument as I can imagine!
2. I'm sure there were some "flat transfers", especially when CD really took off and they couldn't make the content quick enough but generally there would be some tinkering which might have been more "futzing" or just as likely, some de-futzing and often made louder (more compressed), so it didn't sound too quiet compared to contemporary releases. The loudness war may only have come to audiophiles' attention in the last 15 years or so but has been ongoing for at least 50, in fact it started with Juke boxes in the 1950's.
[1] It's not whether the remastered version sounds better or worse, but rather that it sounds different.
[2] You finally take home a CD issue of your absolute favorite album by your favorite artist, put it in your machine, and come to find they done some messed-up schitt in the mastering dept, or, as you mentioned, some weird new mix y'don't remember, makes you wanna yank it off your machine, open your window, and hurl that sucker up on your neighbor's roof across the street!!
[3] Those constraints, at the time of the release of that 1964 oldie or 1978 gem, resulted in those songs or albums sounding the way they did the first time most of us heard them. And, for 'better' or for worse, that is what, not just a few of us, prefer.
1. Of course, that's the whole point of a remaster, what would be the point of paying a mastering engineer to make a new master that sounded identical to an existing master?
2. I got that even before CD was released. You heard some new song on the radio or TV, went out and bought the cassette or LP and it didn't sound the same. As pinnahertz pointed out, the broadcast chain significantly changed it and not uncommonly, an edit specifically for radio play was made, to fit the required time slot.
3. Define "not just a few of us". Of course some will prefer an original version to a cleaner, usually louder (and in other ways different) master, some others used to an original will prefer the remaster though (or at least not hate it enough not to buy it) and those not used to an original will generally prefer the remaster. It's a sales issue, the labels need to monetise their back catalogue and if that upsets those "some" vehemently against a remaster, then so be it, they are relatively just a few. As bigshot stated though, it really has to be judged on a case by case basis, some remasters are better, even to most of us old timers. This makes those who're vehemently against remasters on principle a tiny "lunatic fringe" and there will always be a few of those, no matter what you do (or don't do).
G