malachi wrote:The whole "learn on a hard to use platform" theory is something that I've heard applied in other areas and in general I tend to disagree with it in all areas.

i agree completely, and i usually cringe when i hear people advocating the silvia as an "introductory" machine. it ain't.


glad i learned to fly in a C-152 and not a 767.

malachi wrote:In general, I think it is unrealistic for those who have fought through the process of becoming a barista on a "hard to use platform" and become successful despite the challenge to claim that this is the best solution for everyone. Just because you ended up being a barista - despite the challenges and despite the additional arbitrary hurdles you crossed - doesn't mean this is the best solution. There are a ton of good baristas out there who have never used such a machine.

Since I think I sorta instigated this line of discussion I never said "best solution" rather: "also might benefit from non-professional training by being forced to learn to use an unmodified Silvia, especially one running 16bar no-flow" My primary thought being greater maximum possible pressure forcing very good PF technique. Which thought may or may not be a falacy anyway.

kristi wrote:I do understand that you are able to do this by taste. I think it's really nice that you, and others, are able to do that. In a year or so, I may be able to do that a bit. But at the moment, I can't - I need the electronics to get me close enough so that I can start working by taste.

HB wrote:Sorry, I have to be direct: That's bull. Shocked

If I can, then any Joe / Jane Espresso off the street can distinguish such differences.

Now THAT is bull

malachi wrote: from hb review of Mia: "It took me about a year of work and thousands of shots to get to the point where I could identify brew temperature by taste."

(I just read that this afternoon)

another_jim wrote: what happens when superautos get really good, so no learning is required. I'm talking about machines where you can insert a smart card that comes with the coffee blend, and the best pressure, temperature, dose, flow rate and shot time is automatically and accurately produced at the push of a button

What happens if you lose the smart card?

But when all the arguments are made, all the mods contemplated, all the settings tweaked, in the end, what's is in the cup is all that matters. The only way to improve is practice, practice, practice, until your good gets better and better becomes best.

I have made the mods, upgraded the equipment and learned to trust the wisdom of those much more experienced than I. That being said, I still like to tinker and occasionally challenge the 'standard' dogma. In the end I walk away a bit more knowledgeable and realizing that they knew what they were talking about to begin with.

cannonfodder wrote:That being said, I still like to tinker and occasionally challenge the 'standard' dogma. In the end I walk away a bit more knowledgeable and realizing that they knew what they were talking about to begin with.

It's so true that variance is the best friend of the aspiring home-barista. That's also why I think that machines with pressurized portafilters are a bad idea - they make everything mediocre. With so little variance in the taste, a person who has only big chains as a comparison for good espresso will think that they are making the best they can at home, and just stay in the PPF world for years. When I switched to a Gaggia, I couldn't believe the range of quality I could get from the machine. It took two shots to realize that I needed a grinder.

My skill improved very rapidly at first as I acquired the basics, and now it comes in leaps. Whenever I get comfortable with my technique, I change something, like try to make a larger volume shot that tastes the way I want it (I can't make a 2oz shot taste decent), or roast 25 seconds into 2nd crack instead of 35. Occasionally I get a shot that is much better than what I have made before, and it becomes my new standard. Without all the experimentation, I would never have the opportunity to learn what better espresso tastes like, or how to make it.

I have no doubt that a better machine would make the whole process much easier and faster.

HB wrote: I don't recall reading reports of someone upgrading from Silvia and then claiming that their new machine was a step backward in this regard.

Don't know about a stock Silvia, but several people have reported being disappointed in the shots when going from a PIDed Silvia to an E61. About 5 mos ago I bought a Zaffiro, PIDed it, and tried making shots. I hated using it, and immediately went back to the Silvia. YMMV.

On the other hand, I don't recall anyone being disappointed in the milk steaming capabilities when they went from Silvia to HX!

barry wrote:my mileage must vary. a lot.

i ran my 4-group with a restricting needle valve on one brew boiler and the other brew boiler wide open (no gigleur) and we really couldn't tell a difference in the shots. of course, this was a few years ago, before chopped portafilters, so maybe i need to re-examine this. i'd really like to see side-by-side comparisons on this, not just before and after comparisons.

fwiw, i still think the channeling issue mentioned is more likely due to operator issues than machine issues, especially as the problem is intermittent (25% of the time?). i wish folks would stop saying things like "slams the top of the puck" because that just doesn't happen.

Hi:

I think both methodologies have merit. If you are trying to learn and you are operating blind, without clues to why things turn out differently time after time, then you will likely be very frustrated unless you are very observant and persistent. Things like the crotchless portafilter provide very good feedback because they graphically demonstrate errors. In the case of the crotchless pf, bit of time spent with one can save enormous time in the learning process. The value of other diagnostic tools can be similar. For instance, if one's machine is brewing way too hot, then themometry can pinpoint the problem quickly. Proper diagnostic thermometry can teach proper flushing and allow the experienced barista to quickly dial in to a new machine or to quickly teach flushing fundamentals to folks who are developing their technique.

The problem that I see is that diagnostic tools distract people from the coffee. They get hung up on the tools and not the taste. Properly used, diagnostic tools are tools to better taste, not distractions.

Barry, I quoted your post because yesterday I installed gicleurs in my linea 2AV. I did this because I was interested in why my Linea performed differently from the GS3 at the same temperature, brew pressure and grind fineness. The equalization of water debit (reduction in water debit on the Linea) between the two machines has resulted in two things. First, the grind fineness requirement between the Linea and GS3 is now close enough to the same that I can make taste comparisons. Second, it seems to improve my Linea's consistency. I'm not sure why, but you might wanna reinvestigate the gicleur thing. Seems easier for me to use. I have some ideas as to why, but I'm gonna post them to AC in a couple days.

-Greg