Mono recordings


What's the attraction of mono recordings? I have a couple CDs (Pet Sounds  and Cream e.g.) that contain both stereo and mono tracks and a couple mono lps (using a stereo cartridge). I always prefer the stereo cut. What am I missing?
rockyboy
I have hundreds of mono LP's. Jazz collectors seem to have a lot of them. So many of these mono records have superior sound, so superior that when listening I often ask myself ... "who needs stereo?" 

Audio Technica makes the OC-9 MKIII cartridge. Its a stereo cartridge that plays mono records superbly. If you can afford it, the AT ART-9 is even better ... a LOT better. 

Frank
oregonpapa wrote: "So many of these mono records have superior sound, so superior that when listening I often ask myself ... "who needs stereo?"

I agree completely.  When I listen to a well recorded mono LP, about a minute in I am completely into the music - mono vs. stereo is the last thing on my mind.
Thanks for the tips, Frank.  I've got the Brubeck, and it is a great record. 
For one thing with mono, you're not splitting the resolution between two channels, which over all makes mono recordings much denser. Also as mentioned, many early recordings were only recorded in mono or if a record was recorded in both mono and in stereo at the same time, often the mono recording is preferable. For example, Jefferson Airplane's 'Surrealistic Pillow', the stereo version of this record has special effects added to the recording to make it sound psychedelic but the mono does not. I prefer the mono as it sounds more folk-ish. 
My digital front end is my higher end source and I'm still building on it so I bought a relatively inexpensive mono cartridge, the Audio Technica-AT 33 mono MC cartridge;
 http://www.ebay.com/itm/AT-33MONO-Audio-Technica-MC-Type-Moving-Coil-Monaural-Cartridge-10ohm-F-S-wT...
This is a very good sounding mono cartridge for the money and it is a true mono cartridge, so it's possible to play stereo records with it if one chooses.