is it a true comparison to compare a double boiler with no preinfusion to a HX with a e-61 and preinfusion?

seems like it isn't. has this point been made already? already? ready.

moving on.

love ..

me

Dogshot wrote:I had to read the date of the OP several times to make sure this was a new post. Your mention of the 2 machines led me to understand that they were both equally new to you. Have you not had the Vetrano for about 3 years?

If so, how did you account for the potential that your extreme familiarity with one machine could be influencing your impressions?

Good point. I have years of experience with HX models, not just the Vetrano, and only a few weeks on the S1. It takes time to learn how to coax the best performance out of any machine. But my general impressions have held up reasonably well over those weeks, using several different blends and SO's, different brew ratios, different temp settings, etc. In addition, there have been a number of recent posts that contend DBs always kick HX butt. My (admittedly limited) experience does not support this assumption. So please forgive me for possibly jumping the gun, but it seemed like timely subject matter. I do intend to keep both machines for a while longer, and give the preinfusion retrofit a try. I'll report back if anything changes. And I hope others will weigh in with their experiences.

Dogshot wrote:I would never suggest that a DB can make better espresso than an HX. I would, however, agree that a DB is absolutely easier to use to make consistently good espresso (i.e., no sink shots attributable to the machine once dialed-in).
...
Here's my last word on DB versus HX; Everyone should have one of each at some point along the way.

Agreed on both points. Ceteris paribus, DBs deserve a higher "morning after" score because the flush amount is less critical. Whether they also deserve a higher "exceptional espresso" score is debatable, and probably depends on many factors. It would be great to see a well-designed test of comparable HX/DB machines one day.

shadowfax wrote:Chris, your current DB machine is the Speedster, correct? Which HX machine did you have?

Yes, previously a one group ECM Veneziano - excellent machine, but they failed to put any vibration damping in it with a rotary pump, so led to some other issues... but thats off topic.

shadowfax wrote:My HX experience is more extensive, having used a La Valentina and a Vetrano (with PID grouphead temp readout). I've also had an Elektra T1 for the last month or so. My observations are quite informal indeed, and it really boils down to that I found Vetrano produced typically more mellow, low-toned shots than I got from the same blends that I tasted from the big double boilers. I'd also say that I never found the clarity as remarkable with Vetrano as with shots from the LM/Synesso.

So far, I think I would agree. The unpleasant aftertaste I previously referred to has faded away now, the coffee is probably around 10 days post roast, and it now tastes much as it did on the ECM. My initial thought on this is better clarity on the DB pulling out a flavour that wasn't to my liking. Now that the coffee has aged a bit more, its possible that flavour has died away, or at least muted. Interestingly though, I never recall a hint of it at all on the ECM.

John, thanks for the comparison. It was an interesting read. Can I join in the fun?

I agree with many of your points. But if you don't mind too much, I'll highlight some areas where I disagree:

RapidCoffee wrote: Double boiler (DB) machines take a brute force approach to temperature management. Need water at two different temperatures? Fine, let's just put two separate boilers in the machine. The brew boiler is kept at brew temperature, and the steam boiler at steam temperature. Primary disadvantages are additional cost and power requirements.

I disagree on this point.

A DB is not a 'brute force approach". It's an elegant and efficient solution to the problem of satisfying both steaming and brewing requirements. On an HX you are forced to run a giant 1.6L steam boiler continuously in order to heat 30ml of espresso. Sound silly? It is.

On the Vivaldi the brew boiler is 0.45L and so it heats up quickly (my Vivaldi takes 25 minutes to warm up and can easily be "cheated" up to temperature in 15-20 minutes using shots). This saves time and money. In addition, you have the capability of turning off the steam boiler and only running the small brew boiler. I do this routinely. My Mini Vivaldi boiler heats up in 4 minutes and gets turned off right after I make my wife's morning Latte. I measure my daily electricity cost on a Kill-a-watt, leaving on my brew boiler only. It comes out to 14 cents per day running 24/7. What's the daily price for an HX with a E-61 head hanging out front?

RapidCoffee wrote: The S1 uses the La Spaziale grouphead: 53mm, heated by conduction from the boiler, and no preinfusion (preinfusion has been added in the S1V2).

Yes. I know others have pointed out the S1 now has pre-infusion. But I want to take it one step further and say the S1 has "better" pre-infusion. On the S1 you have programmable pre-infusion (standard) with varying delay lengths AND the option of progressive pre-infusion if you prefer that. You also have the capability of turning OFF the pre-infusion if you find some blends taste better that way (as some people have claimed).

RapidCoffee wrote: The pours are subtly different on the Vetrano and S1. The S1 shots taste slightly sweeter and flatter. The Vetrano shots are brighter, more complex, with a wider range of flavors. We both liked the S1 for straight shots, but preferred the Vetrano for Americanos and cappuccinos. Again, this is entirely consistent with my general impressions over the several weeks, using different blends, temperature settings, and brew ratios.

I tend to agree with your taste analysis. I'll even say I have a slight preference for the larger E-61 for both espresso and milk drinks. Still, this is about the HX versus DB and not about E-61 versus 53mm. I believe the differences we are tasting has more to do with the upper level fines extraction on the 58mm basket of the E-61 and not humped temp profiles versus flat. As you pointed out, this can easily be verified with the large number of E-61 double boiler machines out there this year which have the same flat profile. Anyone able to compare DB E-61 versus HX E-61?

RapidCoffee wrote: What about the dreaded HX flush? Guess what, folks: you need to flush both machines for optimal results. Let me repeat that: you need to flush both machines for optimal results. Two 2-3 oz flushes are recommended when the S1 has been sitting idle, to bring the cooling grouphead back up to brew temperature. Only one flush is needed for short idle periods, and none if you are pulling one shot after another. The Vetrano requires a cooling flush after sitting idle, to eliminate overheated water that's been cooking in the heat exchanger. Flush volume? Typically 3-4 oz. In fact, I often found myself flushing more on the S1 than the Vetrano.

Not my experience at all. I flush a LOT less on the S1 then on my HX Anita. In fact, I have a reservoir on mine and only need to refill it once every 3 days or so. Measurements show the S1 head is only low by about -2C when left idle for a long time. The flush is not as critical on the DB, but if you are super picky, you can flush 2 oz (on your first shot only) and get very close. You accept a huge "humped" profile on a HX but a -1C bias on the DB is a problem? I don't get it.

Going back to the HX now. The HX "flushing" reminds me of running the garden hose in the hot summer for several seconds and guessing when its cool enough to drink. What a ridiculous method! Sure it can be done with practice. But why should we have to? I'm not romantically attached to this old method. In my opinion there is no benefit to a humped profile (it's just a consequence of an outdated design). It was designed out on the S1 with modern electronic control. You want a different temperature? Press a button.

As many have also pointed out, it is VERY easy to get a very good shot on a DB. (Many claim their spouses pull good shots on the DB but won't go near the HX). I also get the impression a lot more beginners buy S1s for this reason (beginners with money of course). At the same time, I must say it's my experience that it's equally as hard to get a "God shot" on a DB as an HX. (This is where technique over-rides any boiler design effects).

I'm sure if you ask Chris Coffee (who sell both machines), I know which machine they will recommend. The convenience and accuracy of a modern DB make it superior to the HX. Several have sold (or returned) their HX for a modern DB. I think this says a lot more than what any of us can say in this forum.

If the HX is $800 cheaper (like an Anita versus an S1 for example), then the HX is a good choice to save cost but still get great taste. But for the same money ? Come on:

"The DB beats the HX hands down"

Endo wrote:A DB is not a 'brute force approach". It's an elegant and efficient solution to the problem of satisfying both steaming and brewing requirements. On an HX you are forced to run a giant 1.6L steam boiler continuously in order to heat 30ml of espresso. Sound silly? It is.

On the Vivaldi the brew boiler is 0.45L and so it heats up quickly (my Vivaldi takes 25 minutes to warm up and can easily be "cheated" up to temperature in 15-20 minutes using shots). This saves time and money. In addition, you have the capability of turning off the steam boiler and only running the small brew boiler. I do this routinely. My Mini Vivaldi boiler heats up in 4 minutes and gets turned off right after I make my wife's morning Latte. I measure my daily electricity cost on a Kill-a-watt, leaving on my brew boiler only. It comes out to 14 cents per day running 24/7. What's the daily price for an HX with a E-61 head hanging out front?

You transitioned from the brewing+steaming requirement directly to a brewing only requirement for your La Spaziale, without granting that assumption for HX machines. With the nicer ones, e.g. the Vibiemme Domobar Super, you can crank the boiler pressure waaaay down, making a machine that is both more energy efficient, and has a much declined flush requirement (if any at all, read here).

That would address two of your points, but that's hardly the point. Your argument is tailor-made for your own usage model, and your own experience with an HX machine that is on the low end of the spectrum of HX machines. I appreciate your observations and comments, and I think they contribute something to the discussion, but that doesn't change the undeniable fact that this

Endo wrote:"The DB beats the HX hands down"

is still a big non sequitur.

Machine-centered threads like this tend to evolve into "nothingness."

If you are sufficiently interested in the coffee, and you have enough money to get yourself a decent espresso machine (for the purposes of this thread I'll call that a low to medium priced basic heat exchanger, preferably E-61 or maybe a used commercial one), you are kidding yourself if you think you are going to make much of a difference in your end results (e.g. the COFFEE) by any sort of machine upgrade.

If you really want to improve your espressos, the money is best spent on using better coffee and a better grinder. All the rest is noise, and overemphasis on minor convenience factors that don't amount to a hill of beans.

ken

Is different better, or is it just different? If you have a machine that you have been using for years, and have a home blend and roast that you have adjusted to that machine, your procedures, and your palate, it is no surprise that it would taste different to you on a different machine. It does not mean that the new machine is superior, it only proves that your palate is accustomed to a taste and that this coffee does not work well with that machine. I went through the same thing with the switch from the Rocky to the Kony. The blend I was using had to be modified to work best with the equipment I was using. You could try the new blend on the old machine, but that would only tend to prove the same thing in reverse... "On any given day, any given machine can beat any given coffee blend.".. sort of.

This highlights the benefits of home blending and home roasting. Beyond being able to have fresh coffee on hand at any given time, it gives one the ability to fine tune the most important part of the equation- the coffee. When you are able to tune your coffee to match your equipment as well as your palate it points more towards your discerning palate than the differences in the machines.

WRONG: "Machine 'A' is superior because this coffee tastes better when brewed using it."
CORRECT: "I like this coffee better when brewed on machine 'B'."

Looking at it in that way, it seems to point out the difficulty of comparing machines when using the same coffee, as well as rating coffees when brewed on any given machine. It also makes me glad I don't have Dan's job! Also why cupping coffee is done simply, and with the least amount of equipment possible.