portamento wrote:I would also be interested in seeing something like this.
The particle size/count graphs are the most definitive data for the concept that Kira calls "accuracy" above, though I certainly respect and am intrigued by Geoffrey's experience with the microscope.
GC7 wrote:It's not even a contest. The Virtuoso grind is significantly more consistent in size over a range of settings from drip to french press. In the cup it's no contest as well.
Geoffrey, your experience with the cup impact of what is apparently a more "unimodal" grinder or at least one with a taller, narrower, distribution of particle sizes compared to one with a presumed flatter, wider, curve mirrors the claim made on the Marco Uber Project site. There, they say they conducted a taste test of some kind with the high-end Tanzania grinder, finding it produced a better cup (for brewed coffee) than grinders that did not have such an outstandingly narrow curve as it has, which presumably would include bi-modal espresso grinders, including the Vario.
On the subject of Baratza grinders, the Vario has a bimodal particle curve that looks much like that of an SJ for example. That makes it an espresso grinder. I sometimes think people conflate its adjustability features with its grind quality. It has outstandingly easy and precise ability to select different grind points, and sometimes I get the impression people think that means its grind quality is somehow "optimized" for both espresso and brewing. I'm not sure there is such an animal.
So, is there a $100 grinder that mimics the Tanzania profile enough that you could beat the brewed coffee cup quality yielded by a high end espresso grinder? Would the Virtuoso do that?
Be nice to know....
Trust your taste. Don't trust your perception.