It's a curious thing...
When fired up my CXL for the first time, I also thought "what's the big deal?" My Dyson DC23 seemed to pull much harder, noticeably harder.
And while I'm still figuring out if my Tristar really is cleaning better than I think it is, I've grown to love the thing. It's become my daily driver. In fact, I've picked up two more CXL's and the same Miracle Mate with Lindhaus PN that you have.
All have similar suction. It's been said these have great airflow. While I haven't tested it myself, I'm inclined to believe that. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of airflow and suction though. I don't know what the airflow numbers for my Dyson are, but it sucks a lot harder than my Tristar. I also get the impression that it's pulling more dirt, but again I haven't done a real test.
So my question is: is the Tristar really cleaning as well as we all believe, i.e., the best performance of anything out there, despite the impression that suction does not seem to be as great as some more modern canisters? Or is that a still-held belief based on something that was once true but may now not be?
Also, is greater airflow only an advantage when used in conjunction with good agitation, which loosens up the dirt so that the airflow can move it? In a straight suction situation, i.e. vacuuming hard floors, would there be a benefit from greater suction vs. airflow, since there's no agitation to loosen dirt and the vac relies mostly on the power of its suction to move dirt and debris?
What do you think? Based on side-to-side comparison, does the CXL really still clean better than some of the newest offering? I mean, I love my CXL, but sometimes I wonder.
