I must confess the words "remastered with bonus tracks" & "previously unreleased b-sides" are really able to trigger me into spending ridiculous amounts of bucks on albums I already own and love

some kind of guilty pleasure I guess. But in most cases I don´t regret this, there is really added great value sometimes (like Tull´s "Warchild"-album remaster for instance, it came with nothing less than 40 min of excellent bonus stuff that brilliantly fits the original album)
I really don´t think I´m an audiophile, my audio equipment is over 20 years old (I think), but there were so many shitty sounding CD´s that came out in the 90ies, that a lot of them remasters really made sense to me.
I once read an interesting theory by an audio engineer about why so many people say vinyl sounds better than CD - it was simply because when CD started to be the standard medium for music in the 90ies, replacing the vinyl, all the classic albums were just kind of "copied" on CD cause it was simply cheaper than get them actually the full remastering treatment they should have deserved to really to make full use of the capacity and possibilities of the CD, which are actually quite a lot higher than on vinyl.
I know a lot of vinly-fetishists will disagree here, and I´m myself not quite sure if that´s true but at least it´s an interesting theory

But yeah I can totally understand that if someone is used to the stereo-placement or order of parts and instruments in the mix that a change here can be disturbing - (btw I have the remaster version of Hergest Ridge, have nothing to complain here but have not heard the original version a lot, I know the album only for a few years now) - best example be a certain album called the Isness where the 'gap'-version of galaxial pharmaceuthical always to me was the 'right' version I was used to before I heard the original mix.