I know you guys preach on here that the grinder is the most important part of your espresso setup, then the barista, then the beans, then the machine. I've been making espresso on my modified La Pavoni for a little over a year and I've definitely learned quite a lot. HB forums, alt.coffee and CoffeeGeek (when the speed is bearable) have helped my espresso improve tremendously. However lately I think I've begun to realize that maybe the machine bears more significance than I originally thought. Although there are dozens of variables that go into making espresso, there is a finite combination of things one can try tweaking or changing. Some things are simply not in control of the barista. For instance, one can up the setpoint on a PID or maybe flush a little less on a HX if the last shot was a bit sour, but the way that the water is dispersed over the coffee puck, the fluid dynamics of the preinfusion process, the temperature stability of the boiler/HX/group system, etc. are each direct functions of the engineering effort that went into the espresso machine's design, and no amount of barista expertise can offset that. Like all of you, I have tried many different blends of coffee (both home roasted and commercial). I have tried doses between 14g and 20g. I've tried grinding between a large range of fineness. I've brewed at 90C, 92.3C, 94.7C... it goes on and on. The bottom line is that it's probably true that as an aspiring barista, it is best to stick to one blend and learn it well; unfortunately I learned this a little too late in the game. Regardless, I've taught myself both from experience and from reading how to improve, and I did.

Compared to many of you here, I've been financially limited with my equipment. I presume no one will deny that being a home barista is a comparatively expensive hobby. Your non-espresso-loving friends probably looked at you a little funny when you told them you just spent $1800 on a machine that makes coffee. Or how about when you bought that $400 fancy-shmancy Italian grinder when you could just grind it at the super market!
Of course, those of us on here know what it means to have fresh ground coffee, just seconds from the burrs. It undeniably makes a world of difference.
A lot of you jumped right in and spent a good chunk of money on that brand new Expobar and Macap setup right from the start. Even the Silvia at almost $500 new would be considered outrageously expensive to anyone too sane to possess such a deep passion for espresso.
Because of that price differential, I'd venture to say that more than half of us home baristas started out with a little Krups steamer, using preground coffee, and for a little while, that was satisfying enough. Obviously, products like the Krups steam machines wouldn't exist if they produced an end product that was invariably objectionable. But for some reason, whether it be you took a vacation to Italy, stepped in to a good coffee shop and got curious, or you just stumbled upon this wonderful site and became mesmerized by the naked portafilter pictures... along came the epidemic of upgradeitis, and you've made your way up towards espresso nirvana. It probably took you a few months (if not years) and a few hundred bucks. But few will disagree that it was worth it. And you're probably even still looking for that next greatest piece of shiny chromed stainless steel today.

It's been said that the four components of good espresso in order of importance (with some discrepancies perhaps) are the grinder, barista, blend, and machine. Unfortunately, due to the economics of the espresso industry (i.e. low demand), machines and grinders cost a lot of money. The coffee beans, not so much. But the barista - anyone with a passion for espresso has the potential to hone their skills to an exceptional level at no material cost, provided the right equipment. Key phrase. If one were to, say, plot a chart of average espresso quality versus price paid for machine (on average!), it might look something like this:


Where 1 is horrible, and 10 is godshot territory. Keep in mind though that this assumes the use of a fresh roasted, quality espresso blend, ground by a commercial quality grinder, pulled by a seasoned barista familiar with his/her equipment. So, the only "real" variable being considered is the machine's capability. Basically, one would experience diminishing returns on the purchase of increasingly expensive espresso machines. A Silvia at $500, according to the chart, would average a 7 - very good - whereas a machine 6 or 7 times the cost of the Silvia would only increase by 3 points, pushing the average into near-godshot. That is not to say, however, that a good barista is not capable of pulling an exceptionally delicious shot on a Silvia; it's just a lot less likely to happen. If the chart were maximum possible quality of espresso instead of average, it would shoot up to 9 or 10 at possibly the $200 mark.
For some people, a 700% increase in price is worth a 30% increase in average quality. Now of course these numbers don't actually correlate to any scientific data; they are merely my estimations based on what I've read and learned for the last ~14 months. Feel free to disagree and point out my flaws.

I've been criticized before on focusing too much on equipment, but I believe much of that criticism was slightly out of context. Perhaps I wasn't clear about the reason why I've added a pressure regulator, PID, pressure gauge, boiler insulation, etc. It may have seemed to some as if I were looking at the numbers too much, obsessing over the science, and ignoring the art - ignoring the fact that the taste is all that counts. I'll admit that initially, I thought that my machine was the source of all my problems, and that performing such extensive modifications would be the solution, being roughly equivalent to purchasing a more expensive machine, with the advantage of being much cheaper (and much more fun). It took me a while to realize that what I was actually doing was improving the consistency of my machine, which is desirable, but at the same time I began to disregard consistency in my technique, which is equally if not more undesirable - thus the two negated each other, and I whined about it.

I'd value the internals of my machine, stock, at about $180. That would put it at an average quality of about 3. Currently, with the modifications, I think it has become closer to a 5 or 6. This is certainly a welcome improvement for the money invested in the parts. But I'm not a seasoned barista, and my grinder isn't a commercial $900 wondermachine. So although my average shots still aren't too delicious, they're better than they were. And so, my point is that it's not only because I've become a better barista over time, but also because I've increased the capabilities of my equipment. That's my theory, at least. I hope most of you who upgraded from a Krups to a Silvia to a prosumer HX/E61 as your barista skills improved can relate to how I'm feeling. For the most part, you know when you've "maxxed out" your machine, and it's time to upgrade.

So basically, there is a possibility of a home barista's equipment holding back the true espresso potential, and it happens more than one would think. But not much attention is paid to it because upgradeitis is the solution, for those who can afford it.

I'll see how my theory stands once my Mininova arrives. For now, I'd like to hear some responses and opinions from those of you here who have actually had the pleasure to work with that $3000 dual boiler + commercial conical grinder + years of barista experience combination in their kitchens.

Whoa! Heaps to potentially write on this one, but I think that I'll make the most important point for now - machines at the same price point do not necessarily perform the same and you can't really work out how a machine is going to perform based on published specifications. Needless to say, this leaves shoppers with $1500 to burn in a bit of a quandry!

Cheers,

Luca

The basic problem is that except for us, there's no market for "no compromise" low coffee volume equipment. When you buy commercial equipment, you pay mostly for cups per hour and for years of commercial service. The first is a complete waste of money; the second, with all due to respect to the Cimbalis and LMs translates to centuries of home service.

There's a few companies that create "semi-commercial" equipment by stuffing commercial components into home packages, and even by cutting some corners on quality but not on shot quality. I'm thankful to the likes of Rancilio, Expobar, and Isomac for machines, along with Cunill, Ascaso and Lux for grinders, for putting out budget equipment that has a high upper limit on espresso quality, providing you have a high tolerance for the lacking amenities. I don't think a lot of us would have gotten our start except for these machines.

Even this type of equipment is expensive by home espresso standards. I can't comment on the current consumer culture of fake, "pretend you can't notice the difference," products; but they shouldn't count towards any price/performance comparisons. Consumer reviews don't add toy cars or computers to their price/performance charts; why should we add toy grinders and espresso machines? Just because they aren't clearly labelled as toys?

I actually don't know if the upper limit on espresso quality using, say, a Lux grinder and Expobar Pulser is any lower than, say, a Robur and LM; and I actually doubt it enough to want to see proof of such assertions. The fact is by the time a home barista has invested enough time to become good enough to reach the limits of such equipment, they've gotten tired of its mickey mouse aspects, and have upgraded to something smoother and easier.

Here's a story:

When I upgraded to the Tea, I immediately pulled better shots than on my old SL70. A year later, I'm waiting on a part for the Tea and get out the SL70. I pull a shot with my improved skills, and I'm left wondering why I ever upgraded. Of course, if I had stayed with the SL70, would I have learned enough to pull those shots? I doubt that too -- the feedback on inconsistent, harder to use equipment doesn't give the same guidance. So it could be that better equipment provides a faster and more certain learning experience for aspiring home baristas.

another_jim wrote:Consumer reviews don't add toy cars or computers to their price/performance charts; why should we add toy grinders and espresso machines? Just because they aren't clearly labelled as toys?

Interesting point, Jim. I don't think the toy car vs. real car analogy applies here. They each serve a completely different purpose. No one out there is marketing a Suzuki Swift as a Mercedes S-class; they're not claiming to serve the same purpose. However when it comes to espresso machines, one trip to your local department store will make you want to set fire to the whole coffee isle. Claims such as "instantly create delicious cappuccinos!" and our favorite, "15 bar pump for maximum flavor extraction!" are aimed at the same potential home coffee market. Consumers who don't know better will see no difference between a $500 Rancilio Silvia with its measly 11 bars and a $149 DeLonghi BAR15 except for the price. The DeLonghi even has a pressurized portafilter; surely, that is better because the advertisements say so, right?
I see what you mean, but IMO you can't really call one a 'toy' and the other a real espresso machine, even though they are aimed at the same home coffee market (from the manufacturer's point of view) - whether it's a professional barista looking for a home machine that won't break the bank or the average Joe looking for a step up from the Folgers. Obviously the pro barista will know the difference, but Joe won't.

another_jim wrote:The fact is by the time a home barista has invested enough time to become good enough to reach the limits of such equipment, they've gotten tired of its mickey mouse aspects, and have upgraded to something smoother and easier.

And I said,

oofnik wrote:So basically, there is a possibility of a home barista's equipment holding back the true espresso potential, and it happens more than one would think. But not much attention is paid to it because upgradeitis is the solution, for those who can afford it.

What if the home barista has reached the limits of his equipment, wishes to invest in a more expensive machine, but does not possess sufficient funds? This is the problem I was referring to.

another_jim wrote:Here's a story:

When I upgraded to the Tea, I immediately pulled better shots than on my old SL70. A year later, I'm waiting on a part for the Tea and get out the SL70. I pull a shot with my improved skills, and I'm left wondering why I ever upgraded. Of course, if I had stayed with the SL70, would I have learned enough to pull those shots? I doubt that too -- the feedback on inconsistent, harder to use equipment doesn't give the same guidance. So it could be that better equipment provides a faster and more certain learning experience for aspiring home baristas.

The first part to your story is indeed bound to leave one wondering whether the machine really matters all that much. When you say immediately, though, you're not counting the first few days or weeks it took you to adapt to the way the Tea reacts to your tweaking of the variables under your power, which leads me to your point - perhaps better equipment only aids the learning process and thus the espresso due to improved feedback, creating the illusion that it was in fact the machine itself. Hmm. This could get interesting!

another_jim wrote:Here's a story:

When I upgraded to the Tea, I immediately pulled better shots than on my old SL70. A year later, I'm waiting on a part for the Tea and get out the SL70. I pull a shot with my improved skills, and I'm left wondering why I ever upgraded. Of course, if I had stayed with the SL70, would I have learned enough to pull those shots? I doubt that too -- the feedback on inconsistent, harder to use equipment doesn't give the same guidance. So it could be that better equipment provides a faster and more certain learning experience for aspiring home baristas.

oofnik wrote:The first part to your story is indeed bound to leave one wondering whether the machine really matters all that much. When you say immediately, though, you're not counting the first few days or weeks it took you to adapt to the way the Tea reacts to your tweaking of the variables under your power, which leads me to your point - perhaps better equipment only aids the learning process and thus the espresso due to improved feedback, creating the illusion that it was in fact the machine itself. Hmm. This could get interesting!

I think this hit the nail on the head. I'm a newbie, bought my wife a Silvia and Rocky for Xmas (SHE hasn't used them yet). Already I keep second guessing whether I should have spent more upfront. I've been thinking of a PID which bumps the price of Silvia to $700 and for a bit more there are some nice machines. Of course, I really would have liked to spend about $1500 on a machine so the difference really is larger...

Anyway, the main reason that I was second guessing myself, as well as wanting a PID, is to help remove operator induced variables. Coming from a production management and process engineering background I know all too well that operator (barista) error is responsible for most scrap (sink shots). An experienced operator (barista) has the knowledge base to accurately make adjustments on the fly which are beyond the capabilities of someone in training. By removing some of the variables upfront, the newbie can focus on a more finite set of variables. Once these have been reasonably mastered, then adjustments can be made to the parameters that the machine tightly controlled to experience more of the art and finesse the god shot.

oofnik wrote:...perhaps better equipment only aids the learning process and thus the espresso due to improved feedback, creating the illusion that it was in fact the machine itself. Hmm.

For the typical home barista, I argue a high "forgiveness factor" is almost synonymous with better espresso. Sure, we can discuss the "ultimate espresso" a particular espresso machine could produce under the spell of a Jedi barista, but does that really matter to Joe and Jane E. Spresso's morning experience?

Back to your earlier point, I informally divide espresso machines into different tiers: entry level, high entry level, prosumer / semi-commercial, and commercial. The distinction between these tiers is first about capacity, but consistency is a major factor too. Ironically the "entry level" machines are typically the hardest to use! We debated the "hard platform" theory of learning in The problem is on the handle side of the portafilter; I believe if funds are available, you can save a lot of time and frustration at the first jump in consistency that occurs between the high entry level (e.g., Silvia) and prosumer / semi-commercial (e.g., E61 HX).

I believe almost all home baristas with the upper tiers of equipment, including myself, are gated by their own skills, not the machine's weaknesses. It's great fun to evaluate and push the boundaries of espresso machine design, but I still place them in 4th place of the 4 M's in importance (i.e., I rank in order of importance barista, grinder, coffee, and then espresso machine).

Well, let's see...

I had a Silvia, and then I went through a couple of E61's.

Now the E61's produced espresso that was 10 times better than a 2 PID'ed Silvia, and taught me that the Rockys weren't good enough.

But I would put the E61s at 8 or 9, depending... (they are by far the easiest to use and the most forgiving)

So I couldn't have a Silvia at 7 but maybe 0.7 .

The Solis ($250) made espresso probably at 5 or 6. Still with Silvia at 0.7 ......

The Estro Vapore before that made tolerable lattes with the Solis 166 grinder. Which probably means I had non-caring taste buds for that duration.. Because the Rotel ($200)(but that was 20 years ago) made a superb cup with true Jamacian Blue, and very easily.

So if I try to put all this in perspective and put the Estro at 3, the Solis at 5, the Rotel at 6, the E61s at 8...

Then the Silvia would only get a 5 at best. More like a 4. Probably lower.

So I think the curve of tolerable espresso would start at about $200-$300, and 8 or 9 could be had with an E61 ($700 and up).

Which grinder you have is going to wobble the taste by a few points. The Macap has been, for me, by far the fluffiest, and the easiest to pull a beautiful looking shot.

Being new to Cimbali, I have seen a couple of cimbalis recently sell on ebay for less than 700-800. Nice ones. Wouldn't want to be in the position of comparing them to a $1500 (new) E61. The handle side of the pf will be the determining factor (assuming beans and grinder have been appropriately addressed).

Learn Stockfleth's move.
Barista skills, then grinder, then fresh beans, THEN machine!

HB wrote:I believe almost all home baristas with the upper tiers of equipment, including myself, are gated by their own skills, not the machine's weaknesses. It's great fun to evaluate and push the boundaries of espresso machine design, but I still place them in 4th place of the 4 M's in importance (i.e., I rank in order of importance barista, grinder, coffee, and then espresso machine).

While I agree wholeheartedly that the skills of the home barista are the limiting factor, my recent upgrade made it clear to me that the equipment can play a huge part as well. Once Alex arrived I set my Millennium aside and started using Alex. After a couple of weeks I fired up the Millennium to show it to a potential buyer. While the buyer was here we pulled several shots from the Millennium, and then he wanted to see my bottomless PF in action. It was already warmed up on Alex, so we pulled a shot on Alex. Both of us were amazed at the difference in the quality. I doubt that my skills had changes in the two weeks, and we used the same blend on both machines (Malabar Gold), so I can only attribute the difference to the machine (I'm sure that the bottomless PF had a little to do with it, but I doubt it would be that much).

Ron_L wrote:Both of us were amazed at the difference in the quality.

Would you describe the difference?

I don't doubt there are differences among espresso machines, though sometimes those differences are about taste preference versus absolute better espresso (a lever machine like the Elektra Microcasa a Leva versus an E61 pump machine being an obvious example). I had a similar experience the first day I evaluated the Elektra A3. It was immediately evident that it was a step above my current setup in terms of clarity and richness of the flavors. But even so, in the final review it only came down to 0.5 point difference in the Exceptional Espresso score (9.0 for Elektra A3 versus 8.5 for the Andreja Premium, for example). So while I agree there is unquestionably a difference, it's not nearly as dramatic as between the tiers of equipment I noted above, especially between the high-entry and the next step up. I believe the majority in the prosumer / semi-commercial tier would be better advised to invest in their skills, coffees, grinder, and lastly the espresso machine.

I'm on my third machine: Isomac Venus, Isomac Tea, and LaSpaziale VII. At time of purchase, roughly $500, 1000, and 1900.

IMO several factors play out in a home barista's ability to produce excellent shots. I list them in my "current" order of importance with two crucial caveats: First, there is a softness or lack of clarity at the borders between the factors. Second, the factors are iterative; one cannot leap ahead of another because they all depend on one another.

1. Cupping experience and skills. You can't fix what you can't taste. You can't pursue what you've never tasted. You can't improve if you don't remember what you tasted the day or month before.

2. Knowledge of coffee science. Tied into a feedback loop with cupping, but has to translate to the hands-on elements of operating a machine.

3. A machine's capacity to teach. For example, the Venus had a tiny error band as opposed to the more forgiving Tea. Bad shots on the Venus could be very hard to match up with a particular machine or other variable such as roast or grind. The Tea was easier to learn from because variables could be more easily addressed. The LaSpaz produces astonishingly replicable shots. By removing much of the machine variation from the equation, I can focus better on other variables. If I were to plot shot quality, the LaSpaz's bell curve would be weighted at the center and shifted to the right - - -toward the godshot. But that's also its weakness. The Tea's greater machine-induced variability would produce a flatter curve, but the greater number of disappointments was largely offset by near godshots. I hope to improve my LaSpaz performance over time; whereas I think I may have peaked on the Tea because of my unwillingness to "work on" the machine's shortcomings.

4. Ease of operation. Actually, the degree to which the operator can develop a soft focus, or flow, in pulling shots----without any loss of attention to detail. This has much to do with the quality of materials, construction, and design, and it appears to me that it's tightly related to machine cost.

The OP said,
Compared to many of you here, I've been financially limited with my equipment. I presume no one will deny that being a home barista is a comparatively expensive hobby.

Any hobby can be made expensive; and most are hard to do on the cheap. I'm thinking of photography where you can certainly take cheap shots, but basic entry-level gear will wind up costing as much as espresso and quickly go way beyond. And you can go out for a hike for nothing; but walking in the neighborhood may not meet one's threshold for a "hobby."

My $2k machine (less the Ebay'd Tea) was not limited by my financial wherewithall, but by the anticipated gain of quality of shot---I would have spent more if I could have imagined what an more expensive machine would do for me. I roast with a heatgun and dogbowl but I'd gladly pay for a new Hottop if I were convinced that it could give me better roasts (or equal roasts with greater convenience).

Martin