Depends on what you mean by 'homebrew taste'...what U mean?
I'd like to do a test to try an extract version of a recipe against a full mash version. The nice thing about extracts are they are much, much quicker to do, with half or a third less set-up/clean-up. Also, your calcs are pretty accurate as you know what you're putting in 'sugar' wise, versus the variation you can get when mashing.
So that being said, I'd say it's perfectly possible to get a better beer out of extract than out of a mash. Mashing introduces a whole bunch of new variables that need to be mastered, meaning there are a lot more places to screw up. Mash temp to hot, screwed. Mash temp to low, screwed. Low end of the appropriate temp range, a drier beer, high end, a maltier beer as it's less fermentable. Water PH issues, etc. Anyone can interject if I'm messing this up, but the gist of the story is that one isn't necessarily better than the other but all grain is a heck of a lot more work.
That all being said, a lot of people say that all grain batches tend to be fresher tasting... Even partial mashes are supposed to make a difference, but I personally haven't seen it that much. Some of my favorite recipes have been extract recipes from northern brewer or midwest supplies. Most of those had steeped specialty grains with them, which may have made a difference.
Curious about the "homebrew" taste you mention... Typically for me that means it tastes good, though likely hoppy since a good majority of homebrewers seem to be hopheads...