Hacker News Reader

Comment by exodust | Hacker News Reader

There's no chance this plastic contraption makes a nicer coffee than my espresso machine.

My coffee of choice is a flat white, so I need silky smooth microfoam (not froth), which the espresso machine does at the same time.

Also in terms of an "exact science" in consistently good taste, and getting the best from the beans, the extraction process of an espresso brew is superior and more reliable. Provided you take the time to learn how to do it.

Next best after an espresso machine is a stove-top coffee pot. Best for coffees where it's mostly water and only some milk.

> "Proponents of the device claim that drinks made with the AeroPress are more delicious than those made with thousand-dollar machines."

Yeh that's funny, is this article a paid promo?

View on HN

You can't make a good filter coffee drink with an espresso machine, an americano is just a pale imitation. An aeropress on the other hand is not a substitute for an espresso machine.

When talking about good coffee it's important to distinguish if you mean coffee you like to drink or if we're talking about flavours, mouth feel etc.

The coffee used and recommended for good complex espresso shots does not necessarily translate to good and complex cups of filter coffee. Comparing an espresso machine with an aeropress is like apples and oranges.

I could tell you several ways in which the aeropress is superior. But it doesn't matter, they are quite different devices for different purposes.

That’s a fair criticism of the parent comment. Espresso != brewed coffee. But the author does quote the article stating that the Aeropress makes a better tasting (to some) drink than the expensive (presumably espresso) machines. When I bought my first Aeropress, I think the marketing and commentary by friends and acquaintances suggested that I’d be drinking something more similar to espresso at home on the cheap. Of course I did not, even though the coffee was good.

Lastly, for someone who wants espresso on the cheap, but doesn’t care about frothy milk, the Flair espresso maker looks like a winner, as I mentioned elsewhere: https://www.flairespresso.com/

To recap, yes they’re different beasts, both good. There are often disingenuous comparisons to espresso made on both “sides.”

> Comparing an espresso machine with an aeropress is like apples and oranges.

Article says aeropress makes "best coffee in world" and "better than $1000 machines." Apples and oranges juiced well before I arrived. Coffee is the beverage you end up with, it's only fair to compare.

Your espresso machine is making espresso, not coffee, right?

Also, how much did your espresso machine cost? My Aeropress cost $30. I use it daily at the office and make a cup that's 100x better than what the machine (or the starbucks downstairs) makes.

Espresso is coffee.

Your plastic thing doesn't make better coffee, I'm quite sure of that.

> There's no chance this plastic contraption makes a nicer coffee than my espresso machine.

Brewed coffee and espresso are two completely different things.

Exactly. Which is why I still use my aeropress (amongst other brew methods) when reviewing new coffees.

They both produce a drink called "coffee". Saying they are completely different is quite a stretch.

> stove-top coffee pot

If you like burnt and bitter coffee. The Moka pot company, Bialetti, is in fact struggling, partly because there are just so many better ways of producing coffee. The Moka pot had its time, but nowadays people know that pushing (> 100 degree) boiling water through coffee grounds just doesn’t produce a great cup of coffee. It’s a pretty device though.

If your coffee tastes burnt, that's because it was roasted too hard.

With good quality beans, my Bialetti produces coffee that is very similar in profile to high quality dark chocolate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com