WTF?
This thread has taken a rather odd turn. The OP never expressed a serious interest in a GS/3, and no one has seriously suggested he get one. The closest anyone has come was me with a generic, "get what you really want" recommendation; to which he replied that the GS/3 was too expensive. So, what's the problem?

Value is not an absolute, it's assigned individually. I happen to agree with the OP's opinion, insofar that a GS/3 wouldn't be worth its price (which, he over-estimated) for me either. But there are plenty of GS/3 owners who love their machines, claim they're worth every penny, and I'm not prepared to argue with them.

It's not so much odd as telling that when people (including this person) define the price range which is the limit of value, they almost universally choose those of their current machine or heart's desire.

Espresso at the home barista level is a hobby; not a business. It's about having fun, not cost effectiveness.

Meanwhile, Back At The Topic
The OP asked about "upgrading" from an E-61 HX to an E-61 DB, and nearly all the advice, including mine, has been that it won't make any difference in the cup, providing he's willing to learn the rather simple procedures of temping. From the little he's said, it seems likely that he's brewing too hot and could prove his cooling flush routines.

In my opinion, an E-61 is a good group, but -- independent of production demands -- there are better; that there is at least a subtle difference in the cup between good and better; and am aware that my opinion is only an opinion. The OP rejected my suggestions regarding "better" on the basis that the machines using them required plumbing; which -- not that my opinion matters -- is a damn good reason.

Barista Education
I took the Heather Perry, full-day, barista class, finding it well worth the time and expense -- for me. However, I'm not prepared to universalize the experience and say that it, or something very much like it, would be a wise investment for everyone. It's an individual choice.

Reading between the lines, I think the OP has some easily solved technical flaws (bad temping, wrong tip); but that doesn't mean he needs or wants full-on, professional barista training; and more to the point, he didn't ask. He asked about equipment.

Since his immediate technique issues (if they exist at all) are so easily resolved, a pro-level barista class might be overkill. On the other hand, the H-B FAQs and Videos would be a great start, as would addressing them directly in a thread such as... oh well... I don't know... maybe... this one.

GRINDER GRINDER GRINDER
If Sumgai thinks he can get the same results in the cup with an M4 and a Robur, there's something seriously wrong with his technique, palate, or both.

I don't know about Damon or anyone else, but after spending months schlepping around Southern California comparing grinders under fairly controlled conditions, I taste and am able to articulate the differences between the Cimbali Junior Max Hybrid, either of the Compak K10s, and the Ceado E92 or Mazzer Robur (but can't distinguish between the K10s relative to one another, nor between the Robur and Ceado).

Rich

Just my 2 cents regarding milk texturing:

I saw on the thread that some people said you should try experimenting with different steam tips. My Expobar HX came with a single hole. I've also tried 4 hole and 2 hole. Now I use the $100 Sproline Foam Knife and I'm not looking back. The whirlpool motion with it is different and you'll probably need to remount the steam wand assembly at an angle just so you can achieve the very necessary 45-55 degree angle of the wand relative to the milk surface but it is WELL worth the installation effort IMO. I can get consistent microfoam that holds for a very long time. Also the cool thing with this tip is that it works great on small quantities of milk. I started with the big 8 oz lattes, then the 6 oz cappuccino cups, and now I'm really liking the 4.5oz Libbey Gibraltar glasses you can get at Bevmo for $4 a pop. The "cortado" 1:1 ratio of espresso to milk I think is fantastic.

But yeah, agreed with most of the posters here that you can do plenty with your current machine. New tips, erics thermometer, grinders, etc. will give you plenty to play with for some time to come. Bust out your crescent wrenches, open the machine up and have some fun.

Matt

Hi Matt,

I too have an expobar office lever. Did u have to do any mod to that tip or does is go in straight with the expobar.

Thanks

John

For the Foam Knife tip you'll also need the wand to have threading like a La Marzocco wand. So myself and others have swapped out our wands with this one:
http://www.espressoparts.com/MZ_558

So it will be a "burn me" wand from now on. Since it no longer has the little plastic tube inside it also tends to build up more wet condensation inside so you'll need to purge that water out slightly longer than you're used to.

And on top of that I've also changed the steam assembly from the rotary knobs to one of Chris's joystick assemblies:
http://www.chriscoffee.com/Joystick-Ass ... jt995g.htm
I was skeptical about the joystick at first but now I really love it.

boar_d_laze wrote:... comparing grinders under fairly controlled conditions, I taste and am able to articulate the differences between...

How are the conditions controlled? Same coffee? Same espresso machine? Are these difference as in "I can taste a difference but various people will never agree which one is actually better using blind tasting in a variety of conditions"? Sounds like that's about what the NBC/SCAE Gold Cup Project by Francisca Listov-Saabye found (comparing flat to conical).

Hey guys,

I know there are far too many of these questions. I have a giotto, thinking of upgrading, not sure if i should. No reason to, machine is fine, want something better - more fun. But able to us on the fly (aka 5:30am before work for me and my other). Looking for better steaming power - ability to steam and pull shots without quirks of my HX (while I can technically do this....it gets real funky on one end or the other). Shot quality consistent, not a big issue now, but maintain or increase my 'quality' on pull.

Everyone knows how much the GS is, i wasn't even considering at first. Its one of those things where...its irrational... I don't know. Aside from the price, my only complaint is I don't need to bust out drink after drink. I make about 4. (yes in the AM 2 need to be somewhat speedy) but I don't need a huge monster machine...but they are alluring. Help me for god sakes. and if anyone says Grinder...pls, don't lol.

From March 29th:

Dburns wrote:I have a Rocket Giotto PP (3 years old). I love it, and use it every morning for me and my sig other. I was considering upgrading to a double boiler machine...

From today:

Dburns wrote:I know there are far to many of these questions. I have a giotto, thinking of upgrading, not sure if i should. No reason to, machine is fine, want something better - more fun.

Devin, I merged your new thread with your previous thread on the same subject so contributors will have the context of your question. What feedback are you looking for that wasn't already covered?

jonr wrote:How are the conditions controlled? Same coffee? Same espresso machine? Are these difference as in "I can taste a difference but various people will never agree which one is actually better using blind tasting in a variety of conditions"? Sounds like that's about what the NBC/SCAE Gold Cup Project by Francisca Listov-Saabye found (comparing flat to conical).

Jon,

Same coffee, not the same espresso machines all the time; but overlap between them. Another unorthodoxy in my methodology -- which you may see as a flaw -- was the lack of any attempt to blind the tests. I believe blinding creates as many problems as it solves unless other valid statistical norm are observed. And even then, I'm not sure it doesn't skew the results in a taste test in the same way that academic "finals" testing isn't necessarily a good measure of knowledge. "Normal" test conditions are neither the best conditions to test for sensory perceptions; nor very useful for testing long term use.

Does a term paper reveal more about taste then a multiple-choice test?

• Yes;
• No;
• Maybe;
• WTF? or
• All of the above.

In my opinion, a really good espresso grinder test would be limited to "dialed in for quality, best shot, served fresh" without over focus on dose, or flow rate; and would have some longitudinal dimension -- because that's how people use grinders.

However, I think the best piece on grinder testing I ever read was Jim's "Beat the Robur" thread. It had a big impact on me when I read it and still does.

My remarks in this thread were limited to five, specific grinders. I could have added a sixth, the Mahlkonig K-30 Vario, but didn't in order to avoid comparisons with the whole flat vs conical thing.

While your description of the Listov-Saaybe study is as most people believe it to be, it's NOT what it was. As I recall, there were actually three parts to it. The first and perhaps the most well known was the "164 Coffee Professionals test" conducted on the floor of a convention and didn't allow enough samples per panelist to stay within the norms of AB, ABX or triangle testing. IIRC the panelists got a shot of A, a shot of B, and were asked for their response. After all of Pope's build up for Listov-Saaybe technical expertise, the first test's methodology rendered it near meaningless.

In the second part, comprised of two panels, both panels were able to make statistically valid distinctions between conical (sweeter, etc.) and flat (acidic, lemony, etc.) grinders. There were also valid distinctions drawn on the basis of intensity of taste vs aroma.

The third test was an "ABC" with samples from an unidentified flat, and unidentified flat grinder, and a sieved mix from both. Presumably the brewing method was also drip. The "results," were given as preference.

Finally, the first two parts (and maybe the third as well) of the study were conducted with filter-drip coffee, not espresso. Can the results be extrapolated? Listov-Saabye expressed an interest in conducting espresso test at the end of the lecture.

If there was a surprise at all in the study, it was how little prediction could be made on the basis of particle size distribution.

What came as no surprose was Listov-Saabye's conclusion that grinders COULD be distinguished on other bases besides burr geometry -- expressly including burr size, construction and motor power.

(I should note that there was a third part, conducted at the Pope/Listov-Saaybe lecture which consisted of three ABX samples. .

Anyway, that's some of my thinking. I don't think it's important enough to waste bandwidth with any more of it, nor to hijack the thread. If you're interested in following up, it would better be discussed by phone or PM.

Rich