If warm sound is supposed to be colored shouldn't cool sound be described as colored too? Sound should be nuetral (medium? 
) so that it reflects the source. When I hear live acoustic music, say a string quartet, I wouldn't describe the sound as cool or warm but just natural.
-Roy
Actually, unless you listen to said quartet either at an extremely close distance or in an anechoic chamger, you will hear the effects of the hall or room in which you are listening. Some halls are "warm" sounding, others aren't. Warm typically refers to a slight increase in energy in the bass through mid-bass or a slight decrease in upper frequency energy. Cool refers to the opposite. So which hall is natural?
Every room has a sound of it's own, and that's one of the problems when describing any part of a system. Very few people have ever heard a system sans room (like in an anechoic chamber), so who can really say if a system is neutral?
As far as calling a system with no highs and no real dynamics (which I think is what Don is getting at) warm is wrong. That's not warm, that's soft - as in softening the impact of the music. Remember that most recordings are mic'ed fairly close in order to capture as much high freq. energy as possible - think of how a drum set is mic'ed. Such close recording is unnaturally bright for those who prefer the response as heard in an audience seat, to them, a "warm" system adds the necessary compensation to develop the illusion of "reality".
Neutrality can be a harsh mistress; many recordings aren't going to hold up to the scrutiny of such a system. I sometimes wonder if those who claim to prefer neutrality just prefer the colorations of their system, not neutrality per se.
