shadowfax wrote:That's all well and good if we take your implied assumption that any other heat exchanger tastes the same as a priori. However, we cannot do this. So I'd like to know what your vast experience with heat exchanger machines is that tells you that they 'deliver the same taste?' Most of the machines reviewed on this site are heat exchangers, and they're all scored on their ability to produce "exceptional espresso." If you take a gander at a few of them, you'll notice that they don't all have the same score.

So I'm wondering what prompted you to say that. What makes you think that you can evaluate a machine just by looking at it and compare it to a bunch of other machines you haven't used?

Please speak for your own experience and not mine. I've tried most HX machines up to an including the Mirage and the lastest and greatest Nuova Simonelli Aurelia (and soon the WBC edition).

I haven't found a HUGE difference in taste which would warrant a doubling in cost of one HX machine over another. (Feel free to point out an example if you have one).

In other words.....you're paying for something other than better taste. (Style, brand, over-designed components, etc).

Even the "durability" claim is highly questionable. Since the parts are more expensive, I've seen no proof the maintenance cost/shot is actually cheaper on these machines.

shadowfax wrote:So I'm wondering what prompted you to say that. What makes you think that you can evaluate a machine just by looking at it and compare it to a bunch of other machines you haven't used?

As presented in Guidelines for productive online discussion, this is good food for thought for anyone offering their opinion:

Be open and honest. Many people rely on opinions presented in these forums as part of their purchase decision. The source of the information you present and basis of the opinions you express are as important at the statements themselves. For example, you should make it clear whether you speak from first hand experience, what you read elsewhere (and if appropriate, link to the source), or conventional wisdom.

With this friendly reminder, I ask that contributors to this thread remain on topic or start another thread for offshoot discussions. Thanks.

Endo wrote:In other words.....you're paying for something other than better taste. (Style, brand, over-designed components, etc).

I don't think anyone disputes this point.

Ha. Good one.

If you want to restrict comments to people who have tried that Maximatic, you should have just left the post locked for "moderator club" comments only.

Hi guys,

Jon: as you have one of these, an older model, true, but still an Olympia, I'm curious how does it compare to any other machine you might have tried before? Is it better ie. produces a better espresso? is there anything about that screams "I'm so great at #####"? If not and the only thing that the machine excels at is manufacture quality, I'm not impressed, especially considering the price tag.

I'm also curious how this review would go if it wasn't an Olympia. I mean the same machine, but without the logo and the name.

Regards,
dsc.

Endo wrote:Even the "durability" claim is highly questionable. Since the parts are more expensive, I've seen no proof the maintenance cost/shot is actually cheaper on these machines.

Perhaps questionable in your opinion, but you have been presented with evidence to the contrary.

Again, I have a 26-year-old machine that runs like new. It has been through other people's hands, it has been run with crappy water and not properly cared for. When it came to me it had scale deposits literally falling out of the boiler when I opened it the first time. I spent an afternoon cleaning and descaling this machine and it now runs like new again. The only new parts it got were a screen and group gasket.

Look objectively at whatever machine you are using (and maybe other machines you have used)....do you think it (they) will run like new 25+ years from now?

Endo wrote:If you want to restrict comments to people who have tried that Maximatic, you should have just left the post locked for "moderator club" comments only.

You missed the point. If you have never used the machine in question, you can only speculate on its performance and qualities. Of course it's fine to speculate, as long as that is made reasonably clear.

dsc wrote:Jon: as you have one of these, an older model, true, but still an Olympia, I'm curious how does it compare to any other machine you might have tried before?

Good question. My Olympia is a second machine, now used as a backup and for "special occasions" where I may carry a machine somewhere. My everyday machine is a plumbed-in Wega Lyra that would probably retail for just under $2k in today's market.

Even though the Wega has a bigger boiler, the Olympia seems to be a stronger steamer (I compensate by plugging 2 of the steamtip holes). But does the espresso taste better? Sorry to say that I have not tested side-by side. My Olympia uses a 55mm basket that requires a grind adjustment to get the same flow, so I would need to use 2 identical grinders dialed in differently to make a valid test.

Without testing head-to-head I can certainly say that the Olympia is a "Dragon" while the Wega is more "Mixer". My brew temp seems to be a few degrees hotter on the Olympia the way it's set up now and that is better for some coffees. And while it surely is a pleasure to use, it is not as convenient as using a fully-plumbed rotary pump machine that stays on 24/7.


Hmmmmmm......did I answer the question?

JonR10 wrote:I would need to use 2 identical grinders dialed in differently to make a valid test.

I thought you had like a village of Super Jollies living in your basement?

Endo wrote:Please speak for your own experience and not mine. I've tried most HX machines up to an including the Mirage and the lastest and greatest Nuova Simonelli Aurelia (and soon the WBC edition).

I haven't found a HUGE difference in taste which would warrant a doubling in cost of one HX machine over another. (Feel free to point out an example if you have one).

This is a meaningless assertion. I've done a lot of tests, and I can now set up any two reasonably built espresso machines and produce identical looking and tasting shots. It simply means that there is some overlap in the set of all possible shots reasonable espresso machines make. Guess what -- that is implied by the definition of "reasonably built." So the exercise is a lot like adding two plus two in lots of different ways, and being astonished that it's always four.

Look at commercial machines:
-- Modern machines with lots of electronics and modular construction are easier to supervise and maintain -- the owner can get readouts of the number of shots, when they occurred and probably how often the baristas goofed off. If something goes wrong, a trained monkey can replace the assembly with the red light flashing. Are cafe owners willing to pay extra for this? Obviously.
-- Machines like the Aurelia are nearly as easy to use as a superauto and make better espresso. A minority of cafe owners are very interested in this too.
-- Some owners want a tank of a machine that will last forever and which they can maintain and tune for themselves. LM and Cimbali provides these.
-- Others are running multiple blends and want groups that run at different temperatures.
-- etc. etc. etc.

Do you think any of the people buying machines for these particular reasons gives a flying eff whether they can produce near identical shots? So why should home machine buyers.

another_jim wrote:I've done a lot of tests, and I can now set up any two reasonably built espresso machines and produce identical looking and tasting shots. It simply means that there is some overlap in the set of all possible shots reasonable espresso machines make.

Exactly. I don't find this meaningless. Actually, rather profound.

another_jim wrote:Do you think any of the people buying machines for these particular reasons gives a flying eff whether they can produce near identical shots?

People don't buy for one specific reason. Most often, they just want "the best" (I would bet "best espresso machine" is the most popular search in this forum). What they find is often "most highly priced" which sadly goes with "most coveted".

With taste, the law of "Diminishing Returns" cannot be overstated.

It's a "Swiss watch" , not an "Atomic Clock" . But you wouldn't be able to tell based on the current asking prices for Olympias on E-bay.

JonR10 wrote:I disagree. What you're paying for is a machine of superior build quality that can last a lifetime.

I think he may have been expressing the attitude of "anyone who spends less than me has hopelessly low standards, and anyone who spends more is a superficial status seeker."