Late to the discussion, but here's my take on the topic. I don't think it has anything to do with vinyl. I first heard the 1990 remaster of the albums in high digital quality. Then I went and got the original masterings. On the original releases the whole band blends together so it sounds more like a single-sound source of a live band, I think this sound is more complimentary to vinyl which has a more limited frequency range that sounds. In the remasters starting in the 90s you can hear all the instruments individually and separately a lot more clearly, which I think actually adds a lot to the experience since the band is so motivated by the individual talents and performances of all the members. I think the 1990s remasters do make a strong case for themselves and I'm glad they exist, I'd say I have certain preferences of remastered or not for specific albums. A byproduct is that you get some spots where a lot of things weren't improved but actually made worse by touching up things that never didn't work the first time around, but are changed for uniformity's sake. By the 90s the common techniques for mixing albums had changed pretty drastically with major studio releases from the 60s and 70s when all their techniques were a lot more boutique and experimental. In the remasters, they mix the album as if it were mixed with modern techniques, which goes the same for the most recent releases of the last 2 years which I think are total dogshit. Ultimately I'm a digital listener, but my point to you would be that the difference is mostly in the remastered versions themselves and not the format, but that the remasters weren't designed to be heard on vinyl, they were pressed as an afterthought to the digital releases, so they probably do sound shit, but the original versions do exist on digital recording and they sound at least as good as vinyl originals because they are ultimately the same thing.