day wrote:Though I have to ask, according to your postings you have never owned one have you? If not its probably best to qualify with at least "from what i hear" or something like that, no?

You are correct, I haven't used most of the things I was talking about, including the Pharos. In fact I've never seen one! That being said, I'm what I like to call a researchaholic...especially when it comes to equipment. I have read quite a bit, and I swear I've watched every Pharos video on youtube. I understand what you're saying though, and I know that nothing beats first hand experience! Next time I'll qualify my statements!

Fausto wrote:You are correct, I haven't used most of the things I was talking about... I'm what I like to call a researchaholic

Since it came up, I'll note this is covered in the Guidelines for productive online discussion:

Be open and honest. Many people rely on opinions presented in these forums as part of their purchase decision. The source of the information you present and basis of the opinions you express are as important as the statements themselves. For example, you should make it clear whether you speak from first hand experience, what you read elsewhere (and if appropriate, link to the source), or conventional wisdom.

Another problem not mentioned above with providing second hand information is that you may inadvertently help perpetuate bad advice. Not all readers notice that an assertion about X or Y was written years ago and would know it's since been debunked or abandoned. By repeating second hand knowledge without caveats, you may inadvertently breath new life into dead "facts".

HB wrote:Since it came up, I'll note this is covered in the Guidelines for productive online discussion:

Dan, I appreciate the information. Thankfully it looks like I lucked out this time and everyone seems to be agreeing with the opinions I was sharing. Nevertheless I think this is an important idea that I wish more online communities took to heart. I plan on sticking around for a while, and I'll definitely be more careful in the future.

I owned a Barista Express as my first real espresso machine (after a nespresso and a Jura superauto), and while the grinder has the same burr set as the Smart Grinder, I'm not sure if it runs on the same motor. I found that the grinder on the BE was not able to grind fine enough, so I had to perform some simple mods to get it to grinder finer (adding a washer from Home Depot below the bottom burrs). While it was able to grind finer afterwards, I could hear the motor straining, and didn't have confidence that it would last a long time. So I sold it and went for a used commercial grinder to pair with an Infuser (though I've since moved on to other machines).

My advice echoes what others I've said, and while a better grinder + Breville Infuser may cost more in the short run, you have to consider the false economy of buying cheap, especially for something you'll be using everyday for the forseeable future. If the cheaper alternative breaks and you have to replace it, it actually just ends up costing more in the long run.

As for the machine, I've owned a Silvia, and I've gotten much better and consistent results with the Infuser. Having grown used to the Breville's PID and preinfusion, the Silvia's wide thermostat deadband was frustrating to work with and I was getting uneven extractions even though my grinder and tamping ritual hasn't changed. Overall, the Infuser isn't even in the same league as a Silvia in terms of usability. The Infuser/BE heats up practically instantly from power off, comes with all the accessories you need to get started (usable tamper, thick frothing jug, backflush disc, cleaning tools), reminds you to backflush and will perform the routine automatically, and its drip tray reminds you to empty it, and slides out easily without spilling (the Silvia requires you to take off the cover, and lift out the tray).