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
There is a lot of old great classical recordings and jazz that are only in mono. What I like about mono is you tend to concentrate on the music than on the sound
Alan
What contribution, if any, does a mono cartridge make? I have neither the money nor the desire to purchase a mono cartridge. But just wondering. 
rockyboy -If I recall correctly, a  true mono cartridge picks up only horizontal modulations and (unlike a stereo cart.) ignores the vertical modulations.  On a 50's/early 60's pressed mono record this results in less surface noise. 

I've got quite a few mono LP's from that era (mostly classical and jazz) and I can attest that when these records are played on a true mono cartridge, surface noise is, in fact, lessened.  Such was the case with a Lyra Helikon mono cartridge (which crapped out on me way too soon) and my current Ortofon Cadenza Mono cart.

There are a couple of other reasons for stereo/mono differences.

1- Brian Wilson mixed The Beach Boys albums to mono because A- he is deaf in one ear, and B- he loved Phil Spector’s music, which was always produced in mono only.

2- Before the late 1960’s, when Rock ’n’ Roll finally became considered adult music, records were mixed to sound good on radios and jukeboxes. Many hours were spent on the mono mix, the stereo mix often left to an assistant engineer to do in a quicky session. Stereo LP’s were pressed only so the record companies could charge a dollar more per disc. When I started buying LP’s, the mono versions sold for $2.99, the stereo $3.99.

Appreciate all the comments. Very interesting. Out of state right now, but when I return home I will give another listen to my mono material.