malachi wrote:Most (good) american commercial roasters "optimize" their roasts for the machines they taste the coffee on. For most of them - as a result - the coffee is "optimized" for La Marzocco machine (with some Synessos and a handful of Mistrals thrown in). In other words... machines that have no problems at cool temps.

There are only a handful of commercial roasters who are regularly discussed on this website, and most of these roasters have related cafes that do in fact use LMs, Synessos, and Mistral/Mirages. These roasters have a particular style, which in most cases tend towards what I call "in-your-face, over-the-top" blends, most or all of which are designed to be dosed in the range of 18-23g, in a double or triple basket. Not everyone is going to like this style of coffee used to produce this style of espresso. By way of disclosure , I used to like it but now, for me, this approach produces espresso which is overpowering and lacks all nuance and subtlety. To each his own.

I have no doubt that LMs, Synessos, and Mistral/Mirages are fine machines. I would not however recommend their purchase by a home user for the above reason, e.g. that they could better copy the results of a famous roaster by having such a machine at home. Any of these machines are obviously overkill in a home situation, although that hasn't stopped a lot of people here

To state or to imply that there are not a whole lot of other "good" roasters out there, one's who have different approaches and who don't optimize for the above machines, is incorrect. We don't hear about them or discuss them here for a variety of reasons. They tend to be local or at most regional and their name's lack cachet among the audience here. It should not be inferred that we even know the names of "most" of the "good" roasters out there, nor that the presence of one of these above named machines should be an expected fixture in their cafes. The use of the above machines and this particular style of blending and roasting could as easily be viewed as a "fad" centered on North America, than as the sign of unique excellence found in only these sorts of places. It is not unlike the impact that Robert Parker has had on wines, worldwide, where subtle, food-friendly wines have been swept under the carpet in favor of "fruit bombs," many of which don't go all that well with food, which is, gee, their major and intended use.

ken

malachi wrote:Most (good) american commercial roasters "optimize" their roasts for the machines they taste the coffee on. For most of them - as a result - the coffee is "optimized" for La Marzocco machine (with some Synessos and a handful of Mistrals thrown in). In other words... machines that have no problems at cool temps.

Without trying to sound overly "Clinton-esque," The problem here is that one must define "most."

It's certainly not Maxwell House/General Foods! But clearly that isn't the sort of coffee one discusses on home-barista.com anyway, so . . . are we talking *$? Peet's? Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf? Graffeo? Or are we talking Blue Bottle, Ritual, Four Barrel, Vivace, etc.? And what about the multitude of small roasters not represented on the internet (or on home-barista.com or in Ken Davids' Coffee Review)?

I'm not trying to hammer you, Chris, but I have a hard time with such blanket statements, even while acknowledging your experience and expertise in this area far outweighs my own.

Cheers,
Jason

Ken Fox wrote:There are only a handful of commercial roasters who are regularly discussed on this website, and most of these roasters have related cafes that do in fact use LMs, Synessos, and Mistral/Mirages. These roasters have a particular style, which in most cases tend towards what I call "in-your-face, over-the-top" blends, most or all of which are designed to be dosed in the range of 18-23g, in a double or triple basket. Not everyone is going to like this style of coffee used to produce this style of espresso. By way of disclosure , I used to like it but now, for me, this approach produces espresso which is overpowering and lacks all nuance and subtlety. To each his own. (emphasis added - JBL)

. . . .

To state or to imply that there are not a whole lot of other "good" roasters out there, one's who have different approaches and who don't optimize for the above machines, is incorrect. We don't hear about them or discuss them here for a variety of reasons. They tend to be local or at most regional and their name's lack cachet among the audience here. It should not be inferred that we even know the names of "most" of the "good" roasters out there, nor that the presence of one of these above named machines should be an expected fixture in their cafes. The use of the above machines and this particular style of blending and roasting could as easily be viewed as a "fad" centered on North America, than as the sign of unique excellence found in only these sorts of places. It is not unlike the impact that Robert Parker has had on wines, worldwide, where subtle, food-friendly wines have been swept under the carpet in favor of "fruit bombs," many of which don't go all that well with food, which is, gee, their major and intended use.(emphasis added - JBL)

God, I'm so glad I'm not the only one who's using wine analogies!

The evolution of your palate, Ken, as described above, precisely mirrors the evolution of countless palates of those who enjoy wine -- falling, at first, for Cuvée Parkerizée, and then seeking balance, subtlety, and complexity. This is a topic, of course, which I know quite well. (Indeed, Parker and I have had several discussions on this topic; suffice it to say we don't agree.)

There remains a part of me that -- perhaps rightly, perhaps just stubbornly -- continues to believe that, as "cool" as they may be, machines like a La Marzocco, Synesso, Mistral/Mirage are not necessary for a café to be great. Clearly great drinks can and are produced on Cimbalis, Elektras, La Sapziales, and countless other machines found in coffee houses all over the world. The chief advantage (or so it seems to me) of a La Marzocco, etc. in a café environment is ease of use for the college kid behind the machine. (In a cupping lab/roastery -- in other words, for serious analytical sensory evaluation -- it's another story, and I think these can and do have a clear advantage.)

Fortunately Ken Davids is not Robert Parker, but then again -- no. Wait. Let me not digress into the wine scene . . .

Cheers,
Jason

1 - I did not say that LM, Synesso etc are "better" machines that other choices. I did not even imply this. I did not suggest anyone should buy one. If you choose to infer this - that's your issue.

2 - I put "good" in quotes for a reason.

3 - This was simply in answer to the original statement that most american roasters "optimize" their blends for machines that can't handle cool temps. In my experience, this is untrue (the machines listed all handle cool temps just fine).

4 - I can name dozens of roasters who sell coffees that are designed to be subtle, not "in your face", rounded and balanced coffees which are often dosed an "norm" or even downdosed - and these roasters are also tasting their coffees on the machines listed.

5 - The roasters in question are largely not choosing these machines based on the reasons anyone on this forum would make a buying decision. Most of them are looking at service, support, parts availability, reliability, resale margins (many of them sell machines to their accounts) and ergonomics as key parts of the decision (along with things shared with people here like reputation, quality, etc). They're not buying a Linea because it is in some abstract way "the best" machine but rather because it is the right machine for their business.

zin1953 wrote:The chief advantage (or so it seems to me) of a La Marzocco, etc. in a café environment is ease of use for the college kid behind the machine.

If you look at the coffee bars that invest the most effort and money into selecting, training and keeping their staff, you will almost invariably find the very machines you are speaking of behind the counter. Surely, these shops value something other than "easy for inexperienced staff to use" when they choose their machines.

Without getting too far off the topic, Marshall, there is a reason why Starbucks when to superautos, and it has very little to do with the quality of their drinks.

But that said, a café/coffee house that uses a machine in the La Marzocco, Synesso, Mistral/Mirage "class" may do so for a variety of reasons. Some may select this class because they do "care," but so, too, are there places that "care" which choose non-DB machines.

It's not mutually exclusive; it's not one way or the other. Victrola has a five-group BOSCO, for instance, and I've had some great shots there. Blue Bottle has a LM GB5 and I've had both great shots and shots that were "merely" good; certainly they care. Peet's has (mostly) LM Lineas, and I've had some good drinks there, but never a "god shot" -- the same can clearly be said about the pre-super auto era at *$ . . . Clearly they care, too, but not in the same way, perhaps.

I've yet to have anything less than a top-quality shot at Intelligentsia in Silverlake or at Vivace in Seattle -- both use Synesso machines. Do I infer from that fact that it's the machine and not the barista? Will my shots be as good if I use a Synesso? Uhhhhh, no. I've pulled some pretty tasty shots myself on my Elektra -- many I'd consider great; a few I'd even consider "god shots," -- but I'd (probably) produce absolute $#!+ on a Synesso . . . at least at first.

And in contrast to my own experience, I know people who have been disappointed by their drinks at Intelligentsia and Vivace.

I think I've improved considerably since I left my Coffee Gaggia/MDF setup and launched myself on this exploration, but I still consider myself an "experienced newbie." I know a lot, but I also know enough to know that I have a lot to learn, and my skills could (and will) improve. I also know that, no matter how much I love going to Intelligentsia in Silverlake when I'm in LA (haven't been to Venice yet), I have yet to really enjoy the results I get from their coffee(s) at home. (I don't have the same "drop off" in quality with Vivace.) C'est la vie.

Ummm....
You left out "the coffee"...

timo888 wrote: And can a modestly skilled Joe/Jane espresso drinker taste differences of less than 1.5 degree?.

HB wrote:No, I don't believe so. Especially considering that the modestly skilled Joe/Jane barista will frequently introduce other inconsistencies that would overshadow a brew temperature difference of less than 1.5 degree (e.g., distribution, dosing).

Dan, I haven't read anything on this website that I agree with more!

Marshall wrote:The ability to make temperature adjustments accurately and reliably is what drives most of the machine upgrades you see discussed here.

While there are a few prolific posters with super expensive gear that obsess about temperature, they are not the norm. I still think most people upgrade in pursuit of improved taste (in general) and also convenience reasons. If it were all about temperature accuracy, there would be a lot less HXs sold and a lot more PIDs.

Endo wrote:While there are a few prolific posters with super expensive gear that obsess about temperature, they are not the norm. I still think most people upgrade in pursuit of improved taste (in general) and also convenience reasons. If it were all about temperature accuracy, there would be a lot less HXs sold and a lot more PIDs.

Well, everyone is looking for "improved taste," unless they're just out to impress the neighbors.

How people go about that varies with their experience level and pocketbook. Beginners upgrading from cheaper thermabloc, pod and pressurized portafilter machines often (usually?) are just happy to experience a taste improvement without spending too much for bells and whistles. They usually buy something in the Silvia or Gaggia single-boiler class. Folks looking to move up from single boilers talk a lot about the convenience of being able to steam milk and brew espresso at the same time. They have usually chosen HX machines, especially before the recent onslaught of double boiler machines.

I think temperature control motivates people to move beyond their first HX, with the aim of improved taste, of course. Some, like me, skip the HX step altogether.

But, "super expensive gear" ownership has nothing to do with it. People adding a PID to their Silvia or Gaggia are as curious as any GS/3 owner to see what a 1.0 F change in temperature does to their drink (I certainly was).

It would be interesting to hear the observations of one of Dan's sponsors, who would have the advantage of actual experience to add to our idle speculations.

HX is "a step" to DB?

I just think that all too often HX gets a bum rap and is passed off as a hot headed unstable monster to be avoided. A rap a good HX certainly doesn't deserve (IMHO).