Please explain mono

@lalitk 

+1 well said.

While I know some real advocates for mono… those saying the mono Beatles audiophile reissue has better tone and sounds better. For me personally, and this is me not everyone, mono recording are a huge letdown. The music must be simply incredible to hold my attention… for instant Fats Waller… recording in the 30’s and 40’s is so unbelievably good I’ll occasionally listen to it. 

Insofar as the mono cartridge thing goes, if you have a setup with two tonearms you are blessed.  Most aren't gonna have this, and even if you have switchable headshells most likely further setup is warranted.  Myself, I have found playing a mono record with my stereo cartridge works fine.  I guess a mono cartridge would do much to center the sound, but I've been shocked with some of my good-quality 50's mono records sounding very much like some sort of stereo!  I guess I'm not a purest, but the bottom line here is that you may not be missing much in an audiophile sense by listening to a mono record.  Certainly you may be listening to a performance that you can't hear any other way.  I just got an original copy of Schwartzkopf's 1954 LP performance of Strauss' Four Last Songs, cleaned it up, and I would never let that thing go.  

I forgot to add, a number of "older" records, like those pre-White Album Beatles one were done in mono, the stereo versions mixed later.  Many other records from back then are in the awful "artificial stereo".  The first Buffalo Springfield album was remixed in mono by Stills & Young after their managers messed up the stereo version.  No one should ignore those records because they were in mono, unless you're just an "audio freak" caring only about sound and not music.  I don't think many of us are that.

Within my ability within my system parameters to enjoy mono lps, 

I've been very impressed.

Try some of the first electrical recordings.  I am thinking of Sir Edward Elgar back in 1926, at Abbey Road no less, conducting many of his most significant works.  Clearly these recordings reflect how he wanted his music to be played, in terms of tempo, portamento etc.

Originally released on 78-rpm records, these performances are available on CD but still in mono.  There is some debate that he may have hurried the music to fit the limited time on a 78 side, but I don't think this is true.  The emotional impact of these performances is greater than many later offerings from other conductors.

I could turn the question round and ask why many prefer two-channel stereo when better quality multi-channel has been available for decades?