What does "Warm" mean?

Someone emailed me McGowan's post, which I agree with. I prefer a little warmth, and found his company's initial dacs on that side, including the Directstream. However, after some time I found the DS's version of it boring, and went for Lampi dacs -- TRP, then GG3 -- and a VAC Master preamp, along with ATC 50 active floorstanders. I still have PSA's P15 regenerator, but when mixed in the system with the QSA-Lanedri power strip, with its clarity, soundstage and "neutrality," the P15 sounds constrained and a bit grungy. I'm working on restoring the balance I prefer, and am hoping one of Vera-Fi's sluggos will help me in that regard (in conjunction with their SDFB Max). 

A TAS reviewer of the $50K+ speakers at the recent Vienna show was torn between several speakers that sounded beautiful to his ears and those that sounded what he called realistic. I imagine the former were on the warm side. He seemed to think the latter were truer to the source, but I’m not seeing how that can be if many of the sources — studio, instruments, mixing, concert halls and sound booth mixing — we listen to are designed or chosen for their warmth. If a system turns a warm recording into something else, then how accurate or true to the source or realistic is it? After all, this is about reproduction, not replication. What's called neutral is just a different frequency distribution, one that pleases some listeners, whether emotionally or, I suspect in some cases, intellectually. Unfortunately, many developers are going for the neutral "realism" market these days, and "warm" has become a dirty word for many, which makes it harder for the rest of us. (https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/high-end-vienna-2026-loudspeakers-50000-and-up/)

Ultimately, my view is that what we are talking about are entertainment systems, so however each of us is entertained, what keeps us listening to the music "unconsciously" for hours, is what matters. 

Having just bought a pair of speakers (Sonus Faber Lumina V Amators) that many describe as "warm" and contrasting those with my original pair of Magnepan 1.7is, I will offer a perspective on how these sound different.
I might call it "distance" for lack of a better term.  When the Maggies are playing a piano or acoustic guitar piece, it’s like i am hearing them at some distance on a stage, perfectly.. every touch of a string, harmonics, decay, attack, the scratch of a guitar pick across a wound string.. immense detail, but "out there"
Whereas the same piece in the Luminas will sound "closer" (again strugging or the right term here). Not as much out there but right here.. but also not quite as much on the exacting detail either.  But with more oompf, dynamic presence, etc, like the instrument is close.
Some of what i hear I’m sure is due to matching of pre/amp/speaker, but the point i’m attemping to make ( albeit poorly ) is that warmth for me has a sort of how present or in the room is it.

I had what I considered a bit of an epiphany a few months ago when it comes to describing a “warm” sound vs. whatever the opposite is. I think audiophiles tend to say “detailed” when they like it and “bright” when they don’t. In words the opposite of “warm” is “cool” or “cold”.  Have you ever been outside on a cold morning after it’s snowed?  There’s a detail and clarity that goes with that environment that I think we all appreciate, but I don’t think that’s the world we would choose to live in all the time. It’s really awesome in the moment and quite possibly what audiophiles often lean towards the more detailed sound early in their experiences and then many (not all) shift their preferences to a slightly warmer sound.  Initially the detail is enticing and over time starts to feel less natural. I also think that as gear gets better you can more easily have a “warm” sound without necessarily giving up detail. I think that lower end systems can turn “warm” into “muddy”. I still enjoy details, but have enjoyed the softer side with tubes in my DAC and preamp.