What happened to the Lyn Weber EG-1? - Page 4

#31: Post by **coffeekid** » April 26th, 2017, 4:02 pm

ds wrote:Yes, but, particle size distribution is objective while taste is subjective. Objective data is much easier to compare and relate.

+1. I agree that double-blind taste testing would be helpful, but only as a supplement to this data--not a replacement.

That said, there definitely is room to compare varying particle distributions for taste, flow rate, and extraction yield. For example, keeping the mean particle size consistent, but varying mode and range through sieving.

Nonetheless, this is exactly the experiment I was waiting for. So, if you're listening Socratic Coffee: thank you!

#32: Post by **Marcner** » April 26th, 2017, 6:48 pm

I would add my voice to the silent minority who own a EG-1 and are happy with them. Would I have bought a monolith if available? Maybe, because it was less expensive. It was a little hard to swallow spending that much on a grinder. Now, I have no buyer remorse and little interest in whether another grinder is marginally better or not. I know, for certain, that the limiting factor in pulling shots in not my grinder.
Also fun when people come over and ask what it is and doubt you when you tell even though it is sitting next to a espresso machine.
I may wrong, but I think the other reason that you hear less about the Lyn Weber is, partly do to cost and partly marketing, a greater percentage end up in Coffee bars.

#33: Post by **CwD** » April 26th, 2017, 7:30 pm

Marcner wrote: Also fun when people come over and ask what it is and doubt you when you tell even though it is sitting next to a espresso machine.

I like to tell them it's an electron microscope

#34: Post by **Chert** » April 26th, 2017, 7:53 pm

Marcner wrote:I would add my voice to the silent minority who own a EG-1 and are happy with them.

+1

It may (or may not) be the most precise on the market, but my EG-1 is not on the market; I'm keeping it.

#35: Post by **Katoci** » April 28th, 2017, 6:02 am

Marcner wrote:I may wrong, but I think the other reason that you hear less about the Lyn Weber is, partly do to cost and partly marketing, a greater percentage end up in Coffee bars.

It's not just the EG1. There are no HG1 threads either. Probably once the original hype gone, there are less new buyers, even with no direct competitor on the market (Kinu M68 barely appeared, and there is a silence about that too). Or maybe we said everithyng what needed to be said, and every new user is using the search button (not likely).

#36: Post by **TomC** » April 28th, 2017, 7:45 am

Katoci wrote:It's not just the EG1. There are no HG1 threads either.

Huh?

There's almost 300 pages that show up in search results, using various combinations of search terms, on this site alone. The original HG-1 was named the HG-One, which yields more results. The grinder was talked about until most of the threads strayed far off-topic or were closed due to bickering. Saying there's no HG1 threads is rather nearsighted.

#37: Post by **Charlene** » April 28th, 2017, 3:13 pm

CwD wrote:I like to tell them it's an electron microscope

That's hilarious, Mitch!

I spent about 7 years working with electron microscope technology and that was my first thoughts as well after initially seeing photos of it.

'How cute... looks like a little mini electron microscope'

#38: Post by **malling** » April 29th, 2017, 1:31 am

[creative nickname] wrote:Sigh. Again with the sieve charts, and the inevitable speculative discussions of what sieving results mean for taste in the cup.

I think this data has to be looked at with a ton of caution. It is unclear that particle mass in different categories is what matters most (as opposed to particle shape or surface area). It is doubtful that sieving can accurately measure the mass of small particles, which tend to stubbornly cling to the larger pieces through static electricity. And if there is good data associating particular sieving profiles with particular taste characteristics, I've certainly never seen it, and I have looked around to try to find it. As much as I'm grateful to Socratic for making an effort to learn more about how different grinders perform, the first step should always be to identify what the real questions of interest are, and then choose your research method to match, rather than to say, "this data is easy to collect, so let's collect and report it even if we can't articulate what meaningful question it answers."

IMHO Socratic would do much more good for the coffee community if they ran a series of blinded tasting comparisons between the results the two grinders could produce over a variety of different coffee types, roast levels, pressure/time/temp profiles, and brew ratios. Short of that, we still don't know much about how the two grinders compare in the cup, and we are left relying on comparisons like Tom C. saying that his EG-1 mimicked EK/R120 shots pretty closely, while the Monolith Flat seems to be closer to a (very well aligned) conventional flat-burr espresso grinder in its shot style. But how big the difference is? That is anyone's guess.

Double blind tests in is usual form is useless in a purchasing decision, it says absolutely nothing about a certain grinders ability to produce the profile I desire consistently, with the beans, roast and yield I tend to use and brew!

Graphs alongside a theory is vastly to be preferred to it as it removes some of the subjective taste Preferences, in theory it can show how grinders perform on more measurable aspects.

Yes there is certainly allot of issues with the date currently available, just like there is some serious question marks in relation to the way the data has been collected, executed and the reliability of it. But it is still better then the double blind test that is sometimes used, that very well could be founded on coincidences, .

You'll need hundreds of shot with each grinder model with the same bean and recipe, tested by a large group of experts and professionals, preferably WBC judges or others with a high degree of credibility. Before such blind test become useful. It is never going to happen.

#39: Post by **Katoci** » April 30th, 2017, 2:47 am

TomC wrote: There's almost 300 pages that show up in search results ....Saying there's no HG1 threads is rather nearsighted.

I meant no new threads at all (I don't miss them, since everything was discussed about it, but new buyers tend to ask about it, rather than just use the search button.

#40: Post by **AssafL** » April 30th, 2017, 1:14 pm

I think the EG-1 is a very exciting grinder. They offer an easy to align burrs (albeit I am still on the lookout for some review that discusses how much out run can be compensated for), and a meticulous process from bean cellar to grind tumbler.

No other grinder offers such a systematic approach to the grinding path. So very exciting. And a true deserver of any possible coffee world prize.

On a personal note - As excited as I am on the conceptual nature of the grinding system (which dots the i's and crosses the t's), were I on the market for a grinder I cannot imagine that a grinder that offloads the normalization phase of the grind to the user would survive MY winnowing process to the short list.

After all, my $800 Mini E, which did a respectable job grinding but awful job distribution/normalization, was replaced by a $1.7k Versalab mainly because of the excellent normalization output of the Versalab chute / wipers / paddles (I did try to do manual WDT in a yogurt cup and the novelty of the process wore off after only a few days - I do not see why a tumbler would make it any more enjoyable). But that is me - I have the patience to roast, and program, and align, and add paddles to the Versalab - but I don't like to RDT or WDT or any other DT.