Mono is like claiming to have the full impact of modern photography in black and white images. I do not care to willingly limit the stimuli that tells my brain that I'm listening to a three dimensional performance. Of course, certain attributes of a recording can be emphasized in mono, just as black and white photos can emphasize monochromatic elements, but there is also a "deadness" to the images in both. As usual, YMMV
The sonic rightness of a mono system.
Many conventional stereo systems are producing smaller shortened indistinct soundstages that one must sit dead center of while sounding poorly off-axis. So I wondered is the small loudspeaker in stereo the equal to a large one in mono? So I have pursued that line of thought and have come to the conclusion that no a small speaker in stereo is not equal to the large one in mono. I've tried this with some of the most advanced loudspeakers available and they all failed when running up against one large horn in mono. The large loudspeaker just always had a more physical solid presentation the sound stages near the same in size while the stereo always had this tiring artificial sound that the mono system did not. Maybe our brain gets fatigued trying to fill in for what is missing stereo is an artificial technology designed to fool the ear brain system maybe that in itself is the problem. Mono just sounds right. If I had the choice one large horn in mono is what I would select over any 2-way bookshelf no matter what its cost. Nice thing about mono is its ease of entry give it a try you may have all the needed gear stored about. It's also an excuse to buy that cool solo collectable speaker you know the one that is too big to house 2 of. As always YMMV and this is my opinion after much research and we all have a bias I keep that in mind when I do such things but am human and can not fully escape my human limitations.