User Experience with the Strietman CT2 - Page 36

A haven dedicated to manual espresso machine aficionados.
Steveholt
Posts: 48
Joined: 3 years ago

#351: Post by Steveholt »

Thanks Eric

tompoland
Posts: 268
Joined: 3 years ago

#352: Post by tompoland »

Steveholt wrote:I'm sitting here, and maybe it's covid insanity but ... How much better than a La Pav are these machine for coffee and living with for espresso.
I can help you with that one. Firstly your experience with the La Pavoni mirrored mine. It was simply too hard to get a consistently good pour. Actually I'd say it was nigh on impossible to repeat a good shot back to back.

The Streitman is a world apart. It's almost hard to NOT get a good pour from it. Being temperature controlled helps but there must also be a lot of differences between the lever actions, pre infusion and baskets I'm assuming. For whatever reason, the Strietman is a truly exceptional machine. It's really a high functioning piece of art.

I sold the La Pavoni and I'm now selling my Izzo Valexia leva for the same reason: the Streitman CT2 runs rings around them both.
A little obsessed.

Advertisement
tompoland
Posts: 268
Joined: 3 years ago

#353: Post by tompoland »

Steveholt wrote: I guess my question is, for the folks who this was their first manual lever, or for those who were burned by early failures with other manual levers, was this machine worth the outlay?
Oh yes. Having enjoyed so many shots from the CT2 and knowing what I know now, I would have paid twice the price.

(Sorry, no idea about the differences in group heads between CT1 and CT2).
A little obsessed.

drH
Posts: 891
Joined: 4 years ago

#354: Post by drH »

tompoland wrote:I can help you with that one. Firstly your experience with the La Pavoni mirrored mine. It was simply too hard to get a consistently good pour. Actually I'd say it was nigh on impossible to repeat a good shot back to back.

The Streitman is a world apart. It's almost hard to NOT get a good pour from it. Being temperature controlled helps but there must also be a lot of differences between the lever actions, pre infusion and baskets I'm assuming. For whatever reason, the Strietman is a truly exceptional machine. It's really a high functioning piece of art.

I sold the La Pavoni and I'm now selling my Izzo Valexia leva for the same reason: the Streitman CT2 runs rings around them both.

Wow. That's an incredible endorsement. Can you say more about the comparison to the Izzo.

Steveholt
Posts: 48
Joined: 3 years ago

#355: Post by Steveholt »

tompoland wrote:I can help you with that one. Firstly your experience with the La Pavoni mirrored mine. It was simply too hard to get a consistently good pour. Actually I'd say it was nigh on impossible to repeat a good shot back to back.

The Streitman is a world apart. It's almost hard to NOT get a good pour from it. Being temperature controlled helps but there must also be a lot of differences between the lever actions, pre infusion and baskets I'm assuming. For whatever reason, the Strietman is a truly exceptional machine. It's really a high functioning piece of art.

I sold the La Pavoni and I'm now selling my Izzo Valexia leva for the same reason: the Streitman CT2 runs rings around them both.
This is quite the endorsement, and the comment about the lever action and preinfusion is part of the comparison I was curious about.
Basically, can people put a finger on why it is better than a La Pav or is it "just a better La Pav."

This sounds like a strong skew to the former.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.
It sounds like you are having a great time with the machine :)

User avatar
Tetra
Posts: 41
Joined: 4 years ago

#356: Post by Tetra »

Steveholt wrote: Basically, can people put a finger on why it is better than a La Pav or is it "just a better La Pav."
I'm in the group of people who owned a La Pavoni and then moved to the CT2. I acquired mine in 2019. I posted about that in the very first page of this thread. I very much enjoyed the La Pavoni and had my routine dialed in nicely after using it for 20 years. Once I received the CT2, I didn't use the La Pavoni again until sometime last summer when I managed to ruin the main gasket on the CT2 and had to wait for a new one. Using the La Pavoni for a few weeks again was a good comparison (although certainly not an A/B type). I found it to still be very good. But in my imagination, the shots were not quite as great as from the Strietman. That may have just been subjective bias.

Some reasons on why I think the CT2 is better than the La Pavoni include the following:
  • Aesthetics: Arguably this shouldn't count. Yet making espresso is a bit of a ritual and a process and, using a beautiful machine adds to the enjoyment. I really do think the La Pavoni is also a great looking machine, but I like the CT2 better.
  • Heat management: I just leave it turned on during the morning coffees. It's the right temp. Much simpler.
  • Adding water: Not a big deal if I remembered to fill the La Pavoni before turning it on. But opening it to add more water before it cooled down was not really an option. With the CT2, just pour some more water in.
  • Physical stability: It never feels like there is a risk of tipping the CT2 over when pulling a shot. With the La Pavoni, it was imperative to hold the machine solidly with one hand while pulling the shot with other.
  • Shot volume: With the La Pavoni, the only way I could ever get the shot volume I wanted was to pull the lever part of the way down to start the extraction and then raise it back to the top to refill the chamber with more water. With the CT2, I have way more than enough with a single pull. I probably use about 2/3 of the water volume of a single pull.
  • Cleaning: It is much simpler to clean the piston and working parts on the CT2. Taking the La Pavoni apart wasn't difficult but it is a bit more labor intensive. On the other hand, polishing the brass and copper is probably more work with the CT2. But ... to be honest I did that once and decided I didn't care to spend that time. But I still think it looks great.

tompoland
Posts: 268
Joined: 3 years ago

#357: Post by tompoland »

drH wrote: Wow. That's an incredible endorsement. Can you say more about the comparison to the Izzo.
Sure thing. The pre infusion on my Izzo Valexia is like a small torrent and IMHO is destroys the puck and thereby produces channeling. I love everything else about the Izzo and it has a legion of happy fans so maybe it's just me or just my machine. So please, if you are considering an Izzo bear in mind that this is just one person's opinion.

To give you an idea of why I think my Valexia's pre infusion is OTT you can view this video which compares the pre infusion on that machine to the pre infusion on my Decent DE1XL. Let me know what you think. Bear in mind that when I shot this video, I pulled the lever slowly and steadily.
The other reason that I prefer the Streitman over the Valexia is that its a direct lever. Pre infusion on Valexia aside, spring levers are terrific for replicating the same shot over and over. But a direct lever gives you options. And in that same theme, I like the feeling of pulling the lever the whole way.
A little obsessed.

Advertisement
tompoland
Posts: 268
Joined: 3 years ago

#358: Post by tompoland »

Steveholt wrote:This is quite the endorsement, and the comment about the lever action and pre-infusion is part of the comparison I was curious about.
Basically, can people put a finger on why it is better than a La Pav or is it "just a better La Pav."
I can't really explain the mechanics of why, in my experience, the Strietman produces consistently great shots compared to the La Pavoni Professional where I struggled to get two good shots in a row. I must say, when I did get a good shot out of the La Pav, it was really good. But I can do that pretty much every time with the Streitman.

I'm very fussy with puck prep and I like to think I get it right most of the time but despite reasonably consistent puck prep for both machines, the pour on the Pa Pav produced channeling more often than not. I always use naked portafilters and a shot mirror.
A little obsessed.

User avatar
truemagellen
Posts: 1219
Joined: 14 years ago

#359: Post by truemagellen »

tompoland wrote:
To give you an idea of why I think my Valexia's pre infusion is OTT you can view this video which compares the pre infusion on that machine to the pre infusion on my Decent DE1XL. Let me know what you think. Bear in mind that when I shot this video, I pulled the lever slowly and steadily.

[
When you flush a dipper lever your are exposing super heated water to atmosphere. Since there is no backpressure from the puck the water rushes out. With Portafilter and coffee locked in the water fills the group calmly and the group acts as the heat sink dropping the water temp down instantly. The decent is a low flow pump design at brew temp so you won't have super heated water needing to drop temp...dilemma with decent is the lower flow makes it difficult to achieve thicky body shots which the Oa San Marco group is known for.

If you want to slow the fill on a la San Marco group (Izzo Valencia/Alex Leva) adjust the valve on the back of the group.

I have an Izzo Alex Leva and Strietman es3. Love them both, pucks come out perfect from both no channeling. Strietman is far more forgiving though of course.

tompoland
Posts: 268
Joined: 3 years ago

#360: Post by tompoland »

truemagellen wrote:If you want to slow the fill on a la San Marco group (Izzo Valencia/Alex Leva) adjust the valve on the back of the group.

I have an Izzo Alex Leva and Strietman es3. Love them both, pucks come out perfect from both no channeling. Strietman is far more forgiving though of course.
Very interesting thank you. I have tried adjusting the valve but didn't notice much difference. I'm probably doing something wrong, I'll keep fiddling. Would you say I would notice a difference when flushing, or only when the puck is in?

I'm a little confused sorry: when you say the Strietman is more forgiving but you have no channeling from either, does that mean you find the puck prep required more careful prep with the Alex?

Thank you, I appreciate you explaining the differences between the two machines.
A little obsessed.

Post Reply