Are Wilson speakers

I think you have upgradeitis...not that there's anything wrong with that! In fact about 2 1/2 years ago, I felt the exact same thing having lived with WP 2/1's for about ten years. I was using them for the most part with older Rowland electronics and just couldn't get into the sound anymore. My first step was to change the amp...in this case to newer Rowlands. While this ameliorated my symptoms somewhat, a certain uneasiness with the sound persisted and in hindsight I think that move was a small but expensive mistake. To cut to the chase, I changed speakers to the Sophias and have since worked to optimize their performance. Because they present a more benign load, this allowed the use of lower powered, quality, tube amps which I think frankly is what will give you some of what you have in your smaller system without sacrificing the detail, transparency and dynamics that the Wilson's afford. This is simply the path I took and I am happy with it.

BTW, I used the KMA 160's for a short while with an ARC SP15 preamp and Martin Logan CLS II's. While this might appear to be an ear bleeder on print, it actually sounded very nice.

Anybody compared the Verity Parsifals and JM Lab Utopias?

May I suggest you listen to the Dali Euphonia MS5s. These spks make music with all the detail and naturalness it makes other spks sound mechanical.

I believe that the Wilson 3/2s are somewhat lean-sounding.
Back in 1992, I had mine updated from the 2/1 version, which was quite warm-sounding. When I got them back, I noticed immediately that they had a very lean profile to them. I didn't care for it myself, so I sold them.
I don't think that toeing them in will change the leanness; it is not a matter of tonal balance. The speakers are lean. When I ran into Dave at a High End show the following year, he asked me how my speakers were. I shuffled my feet, looked at the floor and told him that I had sold them. He was astonished, and asked "Why?" I replied, "Dave, they're pretty lean-sounding." He acknowledged it, and we left it at that.
I'm not suggesting anything about the dynamic makeup of the speakers. I'm simply stating the fact that that particular version IS lean. I had the first three versions of the WATTS, back when the WATTS were being marketed locally (the San Francisco Bay area; Dave's factory was in Novato, 20 miles or so north of The City).
My understanding is that later versions are less lean. And, actually, at that time, Dave used MIT speaker cable and the Spectral DMA-50 amp, along with the Rowland Coherence preamp, which is "lush" sounding from the lower midrange down. I believe these were his main components in designing the WATT. He also used a Goldmund turntable (the Studio). I remember because he did the setup on mine, too.
I see I'm wandering, but I wanted to place the WATTS into the context at that time. The MIT cables are warm-sounding, which compensated for the leanness, and the Rowland absolutely supplied the WATTS with more lower midrange energy. Remember, the Original WATTS came out in 1986. The "Puppy" came out late 1988. Dave may have changed electronics after 1991, but given the sonics, it would seem that the was still using the Rowland preamp, which he thought more accurate to the source (see: TAS, issue 47, for his comments on the Coherence 1). You'll notice that he observed that the Coherence was more accurate in the lower midrange and upper bass, the SP-11 From the midrange and upwards. That was also the same issue that the WATTS were first reviewed.
This might help explain why the earlier WATT/Puppy designs were leaner than later versions.
Hope this helps.

I think you are right. I tried the little Totem Signature 1s in the large room with the KMA 160s and they did sound surprisingly good for baby boxes in a large room - and warmer - so I think it is the speakers rather than the amp and the front-end and room acoustics..........