Warm vs. Analytical

The subject is SS integrated amps. Some integrateds, like Audiolab and Krell, are often labeled "analytical." Others, like Arcam, are called "warm." I'm trying to get a grip on what these terms really mean. I understand they can be subjective.

To my own ears, Cambridge Audio sounds soft and dulled down at the edges. Musical Fidelity (the A3.2 integrated) sounds to me clean, precise, and detailed; it's the kind of sound I prefer. Is Cambridge Audio "warm"? Is MF more "analytical"? I'm not trying to start a flame war hear; I just want to know how my perceptions of sound fit into the terminology that people use to describe it.

Thanks for your insights
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.
live music never ever sounds analytcal. ironically most of the pop and jazz music from all the major labels between 1955 and 1985 were mixed using jbl monitors, which were famous for their warm yet forward sound in the upper and mid bass. strangley enough jbl still has bragging rights when it comes to the professionals (70%). the entire notion that something extremely analytical is good for longterm listening is the brainchild of us (audiofiles). we just can't believe that a carpenter's shavings are not worth keeping. buy what you will enjoy listening to.... warm and analytical comparisons are purely opinion and live music is still more thrilling than anything hi end audiophiles can dream up....
jrd@direcway.com: If the music was mixed with warm sounding monitors, wouldn't the mix then be the opposite if the engineer intended a "neutral" mix? Or did you mean to imply that the JBL monitors were analytical, so the engineers mixed the music warm to achieve neutral?
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...
i'm just saying that the goal was to many to get the listener excited like at a live performance..and a have yet to here the words anylitical and neutral used to describe a concert's qualities...go for the sound that makes you 'feel' good when listening....good luck