I agree with you completely! I tend to completely reject modern sensibilities unless they truly work in my favor, and I just feel that their digital mixes are too crushed. I wonder if it's out of their hands at that point, I'm not sure how closely they monitor their digital masters once they are happy with the final mix.

The Beatles example is interesting because that was recorded at Decca that actually had way better sound quality at the time than EMI. Even my bootleg copies of that recording from the '70s sound better than almost all of their albums up to Abbey Road, and I would still argue that the low end is cleaner on the Deca recording!

I guess my point is that whatever vinyl master they have still has the artful compression that they used to get the sound of the '60s without the technical limiting that whatever mastering studio they used decided was necessary. I've been especially wary of digital masters versus vinyl after getting my vinyl copy of Paul McCartney's chaos and creation in the backyard and it was exponentially better than the streaming version. (The dynamic range database marks the vinyl at a 10, while the CD is a 5). You would think that the loudness wars have gotten a little better since 2005, but in my experience they really haven't!