RapidCoffee wrote:Apologies for the OT post but... +1.
I'll second that for this segment ...
Jim has vastly greater experience and a much more sophisticated palate than I do, so you should value his opinion accordingly. And the "Can It Beat The Robur" thread is certainly a fun read, with some David vs. Goliath aspects (we all love to root for the underdog). But I have to question some of Jim's findings. In the TGP, I thought the Robur produced consistently better shots than the small Macap MXK conical and the Mazzer SJ. Other inconsistencies: I've owned a Nemox Lux in the past, and it's just not in the same league with any of the Titan grinders. And my one experience with the Versalab M3 leads me to believe it was seriously undervalued in the Beat The Robur tests.
I think that we need to remember Jim's disclaimers in that thread:
Jim wrote:# These tests do not reflect user friendliness. Every shot from every grinder was sifted, declumped, weighed, etc, etc, no matter how much trouble that entailed. In the real world, the most consistent, least fuss shots come from grinders producing fluffy, clump free grinds. As a rule, larger burrs do this better than small ones, conicals better than flat, doser grinders better than doserless grinders, and lower rotation ones better than higher rotation ones.
...
# Bigger is generally more consistent, and all around better. I have little doubt, after two months with this range of grinders, that if I tested them for several years with lots of coffees and machines, the bigger grinders would end up averaging better than the small ones. However, the tests show that there is enough variability to create horses for courses. For a new combination of coffee, dose, machine, etc, a smart bookie wouldn't be making the big boys heavy favorites or giving out very long odds on the smaller grinders.
Abe Carmeli wrote:I want to add another observation to a common misconception in testing machines side by side. When the machines have different architecture, in this case an E61 vs saturated group, internal head space, screen dispersion pattern, preinfusion cycle, temperature profile; the Barista's job is to understand how all these parameters interplay and use them in optimal manner to really get as close as possible to a comparison. That takes a lot of experience, and more often than not it is poorly executed. I am not eluding to any person specifically here, and definitely not to Luca. I will speak about myself and my continuing journey to get an intuitive handle on that interplay. Those differences will require often adjustments in dosage, temperature and grind setting to do a real comparison.
Because of the complexity of this task, I discount minor differences if they can be reversed by the barista. A common test I use is as follows: I pull a shot on my home machine, write down its taste profile, pull one on the GS3, notice a different profile. Then change extraction parameters and practically reverse the result. The home machine produced a GS3 shot and the GS3 produces a profile very similar to my home machine.
Good point, Abe. No offence taken whatsoever, but your post is a good reminder that it's always a good idea to include the information upon which opinions are based ...
I think that it would probably take kilos and kilos of coffee to really get a decent picture of how the machines work, which is why I noted that I only had a brief experience with the GS/3 and the Brewtus. As far as the GS/3 goes, I took a kilo of the blend that I use at work and burnt through the whole thing over an hour or two, changing temps and grind settings to hunt down the best shot that I could get out of it. Shots ranged from very ordinary to exceptional, so there's certainly an element of getting used to the machine - as there is with any machine. By the end of the session, the GS/3 started to feel very much like the FB80 at work, which is why I am happy to say that I think it's a great little machine.
The story with the Brewtus was much the same; about an hour playing with it without any great shots coming out. However, now that I have had my e61 hx at home for ages, I'd definitely be interested to revisit the Brewtus.
I worked on a Cyncra (part time) for about a year and a half.
As for understanding what is going on, I only recently got my hands on a Scace device at home and it certainly helped to bump up my consistency a notch at home. The Scace confirmed that the gadgetry at work is pretty much point-and-shoot.
I think that it is definitely irritating that in-depth machine comparisons are so seldom conducted. Because of this, I'm happy to post up brief impressions as long as people know that they are just that. Trying to quantify anything is also exceptionally irritating, particularly seeing as different people will attach different importance to the same changes. I think that the clarity of flavour vs gooey chocolatey shots take on saturated vs e61 groups is generally correct, but I should acknowledge that the magnitude does seem to vary between setups. I selected my HX on the basis that it was closer to the saturated group flavour profile than other e61s that I had tried ... and I like the saturated group flavour profile. I understand that all of this must be frustrating for anyone who is trying to decide what to buy.
Cheers,
Luca