Lots of fundamentalist opinions in this discussion. Fundamentalists are mostly wrong, also here.
First, about recording technologies. Ever since mid-80's when the DAT tape was introduced most studio masters have been digital. The digital studio master, however, carries much more information than a CD file. For example a 192 kHz, 24 bit master is 6,5 times more dense than a 44,1 kHz, 16 bit CD. No technology ever will be able to capture the sound as is 'really is'; there are serious limits in the bandwidth of the analogue magnetic tape (dictated by the size of the particles, etc.) and to claim that the analogue recording made by Edison on a tin drum with a metal needle was "the most accurate" is pure nonsense. Hardly any information from the original performance was captured there.
However, 192 kHz digital studio master comes pretty close to cathing it all. As a comparison, you could think of images - current highest resolution digital technologies beat the analogue film in accuracy, resolution and color depth, even the 70 mm film. The claim that digital is "jagged" of "fragmented" sound is not correct. All the information which the capture medium resolution allows is there, same as with analogue tape. When a digital file is converted back to analogue during playback, the original waveform is restored.
So, ever since the 80's the vinyl and CD versions have been mastered from the same files. The mastering is different, thou, as the delivery medium is different. CD and vinyl versions always sound different. CD is mastered to meet the 44,1 kHz / 16 bit limits, vinyls are mastered to follow the RIAA correction and physical limitations of the disc. Personally, I prefer the sound of vinyl, despite the shortcomings of the medium (distortion, limited frequency range, sloppy bass reproduction etc.). But I do not claim that I dig the vinyl sound because it is technically superior. That is just simply not true.
So, the problem with the digital vinyl remasters is not in it being digital, the problem is in the current lack of engineering skills. As was mentioned before, especially CD masters are regularly compressed to death. Unfortunately the same is often true with vinyl masters. Also bass boost and other dirty tricks are used. So, remasters often sound like c**p, because the emastering engineer made it sound like that. The other problem with remasters is the poor quality of the master tapes; magnetic tape deteriorates over time, and even though record companies do try to protect them, often the current version are several generations old copies. Therefore vinyl-to-vinyl reissues are often a safer bet than remasters; and for older albums, the best bet is a near-mint original. Then again, for example 70's sloppy oil crisis vinyls can be pretty lousy.
The other problem with new vinyls (not just remasters) is lack of quality in the printing process. Vinyl is a rarity, and most plants are cottage industries using old equipment. Both the skills and the quality control have been lost during the "dark years".
So, I would claim that the biggest reason for old vinyls often sounding superior to anything published these days, despite the superior studio tehcnologies, is the skill level of the people in the process. Until the current umpteen-track studios there were always borders to work in; limited time in the studio, meaning that the performers had to rehearse well to succeed - leading to tight playing and real band sound; limited equipment, which the engineers knew as well as their own pockets ,often creating unique signature sounds (think of Sun, Motown...); limited playback equipment, meanign that the whole process of performance, recording, mixing, mastering, printing and playback created a holistic entity.
Which is not to say that "all good music was done before 1980". But it is much easier to record and publish BS nowadays, as we can easily hear by listening to the radio. Finding the nuggets takes some effort.
