Disappointing On Mcintosh......help

 3 Months ago  I went to NYC and stopped by the WOM  and auditioned several MCintosh gear...........and left a bit disappointed or not impressed...then I told myself   " lets give a second shot"  and went today to a  HIFI store and again Good room accoustics10K speakers , MC Preamp , MC Amplifier........ and again  the same disappointment I felt 3 month earlier.

Is that the "warm" sound people reffer to about Mcintosh?  
The sound is ample, base is powerfull  but the the sound is simply  not to clear, the hights are not too "crisp"  It sounds like the treble is set at 3 and needs to be adjusted at 9 or 10.
It seems like  the sound is  coming through a thin layer of paper ...that is the way I describe that sound.  

Then 20 minutes later I auditioned a Parasound A21+ and a JC5 and the sound was more clear and the highs were crispier

Whats your take on my experience?  or That is the MC "warm sound? 
Mac and B&W are very synergistic. Very nice rich overall sound with the tweeter tamed a bit. 
 But I will say that I formerly owned the MC2102 (100 WPC tube amp) and the C1000 3 piece preamp with Wilson Watt Puppy 7s. I was determined to purchase the MC 2301 monos. When I went to my local dealer and listened to a full Mac system with my preamp and the 2301s , I was ready to buy. Then my dealer suggested swapping out the upper tier Mac electronics for a mid level Audio Research preamp and amp---just for a listen. I was a bit insulted at first --as I was a died in the wool Mac tube fan having owned a number of Mac components and I thought the salesman was a bit presumptuous to suggest that I might prefer an ARC system which I assumed he preferred at less than a third the price of mine.--I was astonished about how much better the ARC system sounded, especially in the midrange. I heard  previously unheard detail on numerous test cds I brought with me. These were cds that I had listened to hundreds of times.  I could count the background singers on one Van Morrison track when before they sounded as a massed group. I heard each individual voice and how the harmonies were constructed. This type of detail added to musical enjoyment. On another track from a David Byrne cd, I clearly heard low level detail in the midrange that I had never heard before. And the sound was not harsh, just revealing and much more transparent than Mac with a light touch of sweetness.
I went back home to my system and listened again to those tracks. Even knowing what I was missing and listening for them--the sounds were simply not there--masked by a slight scrim over the sound that makes Mac easy on the ears but far from transparent.
I was upset at the time as I knew that I had to sell all of my Mac gear and go ARC. That conversion occurred years ago and I remain glad that it did. 
I bought my first Mc unit just this past month. It is my first true audiophile integrated and I am very happy with it. I considered Pass Labs and Hegel, the Hegel I would have been able to afford...Pass...not so much. My MA8900 sounds great. I have a pair of Cornscala's working with the Mc and they sound great...for the time being. Different speakers are a possibility within the next year or so, but accessories like a Roon Nucleus or Rock will probably come first. McIntosh rocks the house.
I personally do not know what people see in MacIntosh.  I think Parasound is better.  I aua/ditioned my ARCAM AVR 550 and the ARCAM AVR850 and compared them with MacIntosh and the ARCAM AVR850 blew its doors off.  I like their G amplification technology, as I believe the first 50 watts are pure A amplification.  I have never thought MacIntosh delivers the upper end detail I like to hear.  It is way over rated in my opinion.  Be curious to know what speakers you like and what price range you might consider.