Giuseppe21 wrote:I was just about to create a post about the quality of the Silvia and the fact that many people on this forum continually criticize it. Coming from another coffee forum where the Silvia is highly praised to this forum is like night and day. I'll begin by kissing up to the E61 snobs around here by saying yes your machines are almighty and nothing creates a better shot more consistently. Having said that, I will say that I am extremely happy with my Silvia.

I was also happy with the one that I owned. Below are the main reasons I'm less enthusiastic today:

1. Price versus performance: The Rancilio Silvia represents the "knee" after which there are few espresso machine alternatives that will bring as significant an improvement to the cup. For many, the upgrade after Silvia is a keeper. Knowing that leads some previous Silvia owners to advise others to skip the interim step.
2. Temperature control: The poor temperature control leads many to consider adding a PID controller. This additional expense brings the net cost within striking distance of the next class of espresso machines.
3. Ease of use: Many recommend the Rancilio Silvia to new owners because of its performance, popularity, and good resale price, but it's widely recognized as not being newbie friendly.

I think the majority of the criticism from more experienced home baristas is because the Rancilio Silvia's overall price/performance straddles the divide between entry level espresso machines and the next major upgrade. One of my favorite quotable quotes related to this topic is from the Upteenth inexpensive grinder thread:

another_jim wrote:Newbies invariably attribute their inability to pull two identical shots in a row to the lack of sufficient equipment settings they can change between shots. The fact is that the entry level equipment used by newbies is much more unforgiving than the commercial equipment people buy after they decide they'll pursue home espresso. This creates a double whammy, the people with technique good enough to use entry level equipment have moved beyond it; and the people buying it will have their weaknesses mercilessly exposed. The upshot is that entry level equipment gets a lot of unfair criticism; and that newbies get a very long hazing learning to cope with it.

PS: For those following this thread, Rancilio Silvia with PID vs. competition on shot quality on this site and Machine advice - will I be happy with a Silvia / Why isn't the Rancilio Silvia getting a price drop? on Coffeegeek provide an exhaustive discussion of this topic.

shadowfax wrote:The fact that "you can get a great shot out of Silvia" is most certainly not the whole story. What's your definition of "good" or "great?"

If the poster's experience is like mine, the definition of "great" changes over time. The thread What does your typical espresso rate? describes my working definition. My typical espresso is a 3.0 to 3.5 (good to good+) with occasional 4.0's (very good).

BTW, the tone of some the posts above is a bit rough. When in doubt, refer to Guidelines for productive discussion. Thanks.

shadowfax wrote:Another question: how much trouble do you have to go through to get a great shot of espresso? How consistently great is it?

That's a good question. I find it very difficult to crack the 4.0 barrier. If I had to pick the largest contributor to improving consistency, it wouldn't be the espresso machine, it'd be the grinder.

I am going to offend almost everyone who has posted on this thread.

I for one find this sort of thread to be extremely annoying. Now why would I say such a thing?

The reason is that it is like I dropped in on a cooking forum whose participants were great chefs and all they could talk about was reheating frozen macaroni and cheese in their microwaves, and which was the best brand of microwave oven for performing this (mundane) task? Nowhere in this discussion have I read word one about coffee or what it is that anyone here wants to get as an end result from all the efforts they put out in this great hobby we call home espresso preparation.

Equipment discussions often descend to this sort of level, but it is important to remember that what we are trying to do is to make high end espresso beverages that taste like the coffee from which they are made.

Cutting to the chase, what is it that I hope to achieve with all the coffee equipment that I have in my house, which spans everything from a commercial sample roaster to a couple of espresso machines and more grinders than I would like to admit that I own? For me, all I really seek is the ability to make straight espressos that taste like the coffee that I went to the trouble to roast and to grind and to extract into espressos. I leave out cappas and other milk drinks because you can hide a lot of sins in milk and quite honestly the bar is lower for the espresso component that goes into them. But I digress.

The real question should be, what is the minimum level of equipment that one can own that will allow one to taste most everything that is in the coffee we use to make our espresso beverages? I will leave out the roasting component although I have previously stated here in other threads that I think that many home roasters overestimate the quality of their home roasts. Let's just assume that you are starting with really good roasted coffee. So what do you need to own in the realm of espresso equipment in order to be able to discern the differences, to appreciate what your coffees have to offer?

Let's dispense with the espresso machine first because it is the easiest. I've never owned a Silvia but I owned several machines just below that level before I went for my first Cimbali Jr., in 1995. You don't need a Cimbali to be at this level but I do think you need something a bit above a Silvia. I rely on my friend Jim Schulman's view that the Silvia muddies the flavors and can't express the best that fine coffees have to offer. With that as a given, I'd reject that machine, in favor of an "inexpensive" heat exchanger, and in this price range you should get an E-61.

As to the grinder, it is more complicated. You can get by with a small planar grinder like a Mazzer Mini or a Cimbali Jr. (or other planar grinders having burrs of at least 56mm in diameter, 64mm are however better). With a grinder like this you will need to accept the reality that every day you will toss shots down the drain and need to readjust them constantly. BUT, you can get good shots out of them if you are patient.

In order to get consistent worry free shots with few shots pitched down the drain, and little need to fiddle daily with grind settings, you need a planar grinder with huge burrs (80+mm diameter), a hybrid Cimbali Max planar/conical, or a commercial conical, the cheapest of which is probably the Compak K10 WBC. With a grinder, the length of the cutting surface (e.g. the "knives") is all important, and these larger grinders simply have a much larger cutting surface and hence are simply "better." This is one of the few things that anyone who has had first hand experience with this stuff will simply take as a given, such as the fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west . . . .

I drink 3 or 4 straight double espresso shots every day, in addition to my morning cappa. I do not judge these shots on some sort of imaginary scale of "goodness" versus some fake sort of "ideal" shot. Rather, if the shot is truly bad, which is obvious before one would even try to drink it, then I pitch it down the sink. This happens very rarely these days with my equipment except maybe when I change among hugely different coffees in a given grinder. Otherwise, the question for me is, "can I taste the coffee and can I evaluate it, independent of slight variations in the extraction?" I am not saying that there is not variation in quality among the shots I pull, but rather, given a certain level (which I normally exceed) can I taste the coffee well enough that I can evaluate it, can I make allowances in my mind for the inevitable small variations in shot quality? Normally, the answer is "yes." In that case, I'm totally absorbed in tasting the coffee itself, evaluating how I roasted it, looking for flaws in the roasted beans, etc. The last thought that enters my mind is, "gosh, this was a 3.8 shot and I was expecting a 4.2" The focus, always, is on the coffee and not on "the shot."

In the end this is all about the coffee. It is not about getting "perfect" shots or shots that merit a certain point score out of some mythical total. If you are not thinking about the coffee, which is the whole reason for bothering with this, to taste the special differences among the various coffees out there, then you are simply wasting your time and should go find another hobby where the equipment is the endpoint, rather than what you can accomplish with it. Otherwise, you are reduced to being like the wine drinker who concentrates only on his wine glasses and not on the wine he is drinking out of them.

ken