Warm vs. Analytical

For better or for worse, in audiophile-speak "analytical" is generally considered pejorative, "warm" not always (or even usually). "Neutral", on the other hand, is considered either too boring, or entirely mythical...

Reading through some of the subsequent responses, I want to make it clear that I was not endorsing common perceptions engendered by these terms, just reporting them (nor was I trying to define them). I personally have a low tolerance for both excessive or obvious warmth *and* analytical-ness, and consider 'neutrality', to the extent that we can obtain or be sure about such a thing, to be a virture.

I also think that the definitions offered above only touch on some of the aspects involved in generating these perceptions - the question actually goes beyond just tonal balance to me - but I'm going to refrain from expounding further since it's all very subjective anyway. But for the record, I find Rockvirgo's explanation to cover the whole gestalt more satisfactorily than a technical exegesis likely would.

ASDF: I composed a post making essentially the same point last night, but decided not to post it. Why? Because for whatever combination of reasons (which I could speculate on, but don't need to for us to acknowledge the net result), the truth of the matter is that plenty of recordings from the period JRD refers to do in fact have a 'warm' sound. It stands to reason that if the logic of your argument is good (and I believe that it is), then the premises must either be incorrect or incomplete, because the expected conclusion doesn't seem to follow. It is an interesting topic to ponder...