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).

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

Yes, we agree here. I'm just pointing out that I suspect most people wouldn't solely focus on the temperature control to achieve improved taste. If they do, I think they'll be disappointed.

Marshall wrote: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).

I doubt the main reason people buy a PID is to experiment with temperature. (I know I didn't buy mine for that reason). I think most people buy it after hearing about the infamous "Silvia thermostat deadband" and how the PID will cure it and eliminate the similarly infamous "Silvia temperature surfing". I would even bet that Silvia PIDs outnumber all others sold by about 10 to 1 at least. Maybe someone can comment?

We obsess about temperature because we can accurately measure it and display it. We should be obsessing about things like bean freshness, but unfortunately it doesn't come covered in chrome or have a sexy display.

TimEggers wrote: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).

I won't knock the HX, I know some people love them.

Still, I always find it funny how the temperature idiosyncrasies of the HX are revered but those of the Silvia are condemned.

IMHO, people buy expensive gear either because:

a) they love neat gear (est 38%)
b) they have a hard time accepting that what is holding them back is their own skill (est 60%)
c) they have reached the point where the gating item on quality improvement is the equipment (est 2%)

malachi wrote:IMHO, people buy expensive gear either because:

a) they love neat gear (est 38%)
b) they have a hard time accepting that what is holding them back is their own skill (est 60%)
c) they have reached the point where the gating item on quality improvement is the equipment (est 2%)

out of curiosity, where did you get those statistics?


PS,
you seems to be enjoying this "waste of time, pointless, boring" thread..

TimEggers wrote:HX is "a step" to DB? .

If you own a DB, and before that an HX and before that a single boiler (a common sequence), the HX was your second "step." If you go to meet your maker with an HX sitting on your countertop, the HX was your last "step." Geez...people are so easily offended.

Endo wrote:We obsess about temperature because we can accurately measure it and display it. We should be obsessing about things like bean freshness, but unforunately it doesn't come covered in chrome or have a sexy display.

Speak for yourself. Like many here, I don't obsess about freshness. I take it for granted because of the roasters I deal with. I adjust temperature for each blend and sometimes to experiment with the same blend, without having any readout at all. I know I'm not the only one.

Now, about pressure ....

malachi wrote:IMHO, people buy expensive gear either because:

a) they love neat gear (est 38%)
b) they have a hard time accepting that what is holding them back is their own skill (est 60%)
c) they have reached the point where the gating item on quality improvement is the equipment (est 2%)

I would not personally presuppose to understand anyone else's motivations; sometimes I've had enough trouble figuring out my own . . . . .

This thread has become like so many others that deal with espresso and coffee equipment; totally divorced from reality and from coffee, which is the whole reason why anyone should even bother to buy the equipment in the first place.

There are many reasons why people buy various types of machines. These reasons vary from experience, toleration of equipment variability, dislike for futzing around with equipment to accomplish a simple task, appreciation of machinery that is well made, available space in the espresso bar or kitchen area, appearance, ad infinitum. The initial cost of the equipment when amortized over a number of years can become (relatively) inconsequential.

I bought my first Cimbali Junior, a pourover vibe machine, almost 15 years ago (Sept. of 1995). I bought the machine on the recommendation of a restaurateur I admire who suggested I buy this machine after I expressed my frustration about the 3 cheap pump driven machines I'd owned which had broken over a period of several years. In 1995 there was not the huge choice of E61 and other cheaper machines we now have available, plus the coffee internet was in its infancy and I was not online and didn't know about the other limited choices I could have made back then.

People have many more choices open to them today. Even if they go completely overboard and buy (an extreme example) a Speedster and a Robur, stuff like that is going to last nearly forever and the cost of ownership amortized over a decade or two would be trivial. Compared to many other much more expensive hobbies like golf or wine or skiing or vintage car collecting, home espresso making is not expensive. The more money you spend on your espresso gear, the easier it is to get (at least) decent results. One need look no further than the broad consensus on grinders (large conicals or hybrid planar/conical or large diameter planar) that when you spend more you often get more consistent and more easily obtained results.

I don't think there are any "right" or "wrong" choices as long as one avoids obviously flawed or defective equipment. I for one don't begrudge anyone their right to spend as much money as they want on whatever they want. At this time we should be happy that anyone is buying anything, given the economic situation.

ken

Marshall wrote:If you own a DB, and before that an HX and before that a single boiler (a common sequence), the HX was your second "step." If you go to meet your maker with an HX sitting on your countertop, the HX was your last "step." Geez...people are so easily offended.

My apologies Marshall, I've taken no offense and although my remark followed your post it was an observational statement pointed more towards the broader trend of folks who move on to DB. Nothing more. I just find this discussion tiresome because it's never going to end HX or DB will (most likely) never be crowned superior to the other. To each their own.

Maybe it is just me but based on discussions here and abroad a little too often I just feel that HX's get picked on a little too much and DB's get praised a little too often. The point is that selection of either is subjective to the user and the pros and cons of each must be considered (and they've been pounded to death).

Juanjo wrote:out of curiosity, where did you get those statistics?

Either Chris made them up, or he's basing it upon his vast experience -- oh, wait . . .

* * * * *

Chris you do have a lot of experience, but making up numbers doesn't help you . . .