Titan Grinder Project - Page 7

[HB]

The Super Jolly arrived last Friday and the Kony arrived late Monday afternoon. This post documents my initial impressions and the approach I'll be using for the next few days.

First of all, I'm impressed by the Super Jolly. A couple years ago I bought one of the TagEx grinders for a mere $125 and gave it to Lino for repainting. A year later, I was still waiting my turn, so when he said his buddy wanted to buy one, I sold it. Now I regret it, the Super Jolly produces a grind that's noticeably more even than the Mazzer Mini. In an offline conversation, Michael (k7qz) brought related comments to my attention from CoffeeGeek:

We have the chance to have all 3 grinders (mini, jolly, major) in the same room and observed that, as you step up with size:

- shot to shot consistency improves
- grinds gets fluffier
- which results in less clumping and improves dosing/distribution
- the clarity of the shot improves (i.e. flavors become more distinct and layered)
- pop-corning becomes more severe

(link)

I used to wonder about Billy Willson and his preference for the Super Jolly:


From SCAA Barista Competition - USBC 2006

He could bring any grinder he wanted to the competition, why not a conical as practically ever competitor did? Evidently he prefers the Super Jolly's flavor profile. I agree, it pulls a darn good shot, and it handles grounds distribution nicely too.

Once I had the weekend with the Super Jolly, I wanted to dry run a few "blind" tests when the Kony arrived. Since there's only me for testing, I prepared two baskets with one discreetly marked under the rim and put them on a lazy susan. To randomize the selection, I spun it for awhile with my eyes closed and then groped for one of the two baskets without looking, placed it in the portafilter, then locked in and pulled with spouted portafilter. This process worked well enough; I genuinely had no idea which basket was selected and the spouted portafilter masked visual differences.

For the first go-around yesterday, I selected Counter Culture Coffee's Toscano espresso blend and applied a simple thumbs up/thumbs down vote on overall preference. Kony won 3 out of 4 against the Super Jolly, though the difference for this blend wasn't nearly as obvious as Dave/John reported. The texture was a larger tell than the flavor profile, with the Kony's having slightly more body and lighter mousse-like texture, despite having sat for 30+ seconds before sampling.

Interesting side-note: The Kony won the last round, though it wasn't really a fair comparison. I had to transfer some beans to the Jolly and forgot to reopen the hopper's trap on the Kony, so the beans didn't have the pressure of the coffee above. Dave mentioned that the grind was uneven if there wasn't some constant pressure; indeed, the shot ran faster than the prior ones and I cut it off ~five seconds earlier. At the time I didn't connect the reason for the faster extraction and rated them anyway.

Today I focused exclusively on the Kony. The blend was Intelligentsia Coffee's Black Cat:

[gvideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3865724457823593662[/gvideo]

Nice easy extractions, good chocolates and thick body. I should have made a machiatto!

[cannonfodder]

Interesting, I thought the Super Jolly produced more body with my selection of coffees.

[another_jim]

The Mazzer Robur and Macap MXK are with me now. In addition Jim P sent me the larger Macap conical and the Fiorenzato conical, both with 68mm burrs. The smaller Macap and Kony weigh in at 62mm, while the Robur is king of the conical hill at 72mm.

After some testing, I could not detect any difference at all in taste between the Fiorenzato and the larger Macap. This is unsurprising, since the burrs look identical, and the motors are similarly sized. So for the remainder of my shift, I'll be testing the Robur and the two Macaps:



I have removed the hoppers, so I can single dose conveniently. However, the grind characteristics change if one just dumps beans into the throat and covers, so I rigged up some cylindrical 55mm diameter "nano-hoppers" where I can push the beans through with a shot glass that fits. The grind is now close to identical as what one gets with a regular filled hopper.

So far, I've just been getting acquainted with the grinders. I'm using Black Cat for this phase, of which I had 2 pounds, now mostly gone. This year's formulation is slightly smokier than it was in the past, even though the roast is lighter; and poorly pulled shots will taste ashy. Good shots will have chocolate, a mild citrus twist, that sassafras-like flavor one gets from Brazilian coffees, and a clean hint of smokiness.

Two days of shot pulling showed clear differences between the grinders. I had dialed all the grinders in for 15 gram dose normales. The little Macap's shots were all over the place, with unbalanced, excessive flavors, sometimes all chocolate, sometime all citrus, with no hint of smokiness. The Robur shots were well balanced, although still varied, and displayed the profile of the blend very well. The larger Macap shots were utterly flat and perfectly consistent.

So is the Robur great, the little Macap OK, and the big Macap awful?

Not even close.

I've come to recognize these taste variations as caused by differing solids extraction. The big Macap is classically over-extracting, with the taste dulled by melanoidins. The Robur is extracting properly, and the taste is responding smoothly to small variations in the way I'm pulling. The little Macap is classically under-extracting, the flavors are unbuffered by caramels, and on a knife edge, so their balance is almost impossible to control.

Today I changed my MO, doing 13.5 gram shots on the little Macap, 15 gram shots on the Robur, and 16.5 gram shots on the larger Macap. This did the trick, and the shots came out tasting correct from all three grinders. If there are quality differences, they will require a long series of blind testing to discern.

But first things first. I'm going to spend my time measuring the solids extraction from these grinders at different doses. This will take around 10 to 15 days, since I'll be doing multiple shots at each dose, using various coffees. People who are curious about the details can refer to my paper. John will also do a laser count on the various required grinds from each grinder. I suspect that a grinder that produces more fines requires a coarser grind to achieve the same flow for the same dose. The coarser grind will mean it extracts less at the same dose than a grinder that produces fewer fines.

If there are people in the Chicago area who are interested in coming down to Hyde Park to spend an afternoon blind tasting these grinders, I would like to set something up next week. Lunch and supper will be on me. Please PM me if you're interested.

So what does this imply for when people (including me in the past) claim one grinder is way better than another? It probably means they are wrong:
-- People have an SOP at their homes or cafes, and they slot the new grinder into that.
-- They are looking to get the profile they want on the blends they normally use.
-- If the new grinder happens to extract better according to these criteria, it's clearly "far better."
-- However, it could be that a change in dose, basket, etc, that altered the solids extraction, would have produced the same effect from any other grinder.

I actually think large grindstones may produce an absolutely better grind than small ones; and I'm certain well made commercial burrs produce better grinds than the funky burrs one sees in the sub-$100 home grinders. But before one can judge any of this for espresso, one needs to get a handle on the extraction differences among grinders that alter the taste balance without indicating anything about the underlying quality. That's what I'll be posting about.

Thanks for listening; happy 4th of July.

[Matthew]

@another_jim:

Where do "MO" and "SOP" stand for? (MO=Modus Operandi? )(SOP= Standard Operating Procedure ?)

PS: Good to see that this thread is moving again, very interesting info!

[JonS]

I've come to recognize these taste variations as caused by differing solids extraction. The big Macap is classically over-extracting, with the taste dulled by melanoidins. The Robur is extracting properly, and the taste is responding smoothly to small variations in the way I'm pulling. The little Macap is classically under-extracting, the flavors are unbuffered by caramels, and on a knife edge, so their balance is almost impossible to control.

Today I changed my MO, doing 13.5 gram shots on the little Macap, 15 gram shots on the Robur, and 16.5 gram shots on the larger Macap. This did the trick, and the shots came out tasting correct from all three grinders. If there are quality differences, they will require a long series of blind testing to discern.

Jim, as ever, a tremendously insightful post. Just wanted to say that.

Jon

[another_jim]

Thanks Jon.

Yeah, Matthew: SOP, standard operating procedure; MO, modus operandi.

[cafeIKE]

Today I changed my MO, doing 13.5 gram shots on the little Macap, 15 gram shots on the Robur, and 16.5 gram shots on the larger Macap. This did the trick, and the shots came out tasting correct from all three grinders. If there are quality differences, they will require a long series of blind testing to discern...

So what does this imply for when people (including me in the past) claim one grinder is way better than another? It probably means they are wrong:
-- People have an SOP at their homes or cafes, and they slot the new grinder into that.
-- They are looking to get the profile they want on the blends they normally use.
-- If the new grinder happens to extract better according to these criteria, it's clearly "far better."
-- However, it could be that a change in dose, basket, etc, that altered the solids extraction, would have produced the same effect from any other grinder.

Thanks for listening; happy 4th of July.

As always, your insight into what makes great espresso is spot on, you bleedin' rebel!

I've single dosed the grinder for years, believing that keeping the beans dark and cool of paramount importance.

At SCAA, Greg Scace made an off-hand comment that a grinder required beans in the throat to control pop-corning. At the time, I didn't give it much thought.

FFW 2 months.

At home, Supreme Bean's Dolce Terra was never up to the taste of shots pulled in their shop. Rather muddy with an impossible to remove bitterness.

On a July 4th reactionary whim, I loaded the hopper with ½lb of Dolce Terra. The grind is now a full tooth finer for the same dose. The taste difference is nothing short of incredible. The bitterness completely gone, sweetness rampant and flavor focus, crisp.

Grazzi mille!

[jesawdy]

Jim, those are some fancy hoppers

But seriously, thanks for all the hard work and scientific approach.... let's hope it is all very revealing.

[another_jim]

Jim, those are some fancy hoppers

But seriously, thanks for all the hard work and scientific approach.... let's hope it is all very revealing.

They come in a whole series of very cool designer colors to match your decor -- on sale at Kinkos.com

[another_jim]

Not much to report today; I'm continuing to get to know the grinders.

I'd like to blind test the grinders. It's possible to test a pair of options by doing a basket shuffle after packing; but how does one test 4 different doses on three different grinders?

A few people have volunteered to do tasting next week. If there's more out there, please come. An alternative approach would be to do something like pods -- prepare the ground coffee ahead of time in anonymous packets, taste, take notes, and see which one scores best. The only problem is that pods suck, despite the nitrogen flushing, pressure packing, etc etc. So tomorrow, I'll be reporting on the great grind freezing experiment. That's right, there's three shots ground, one from each grinder in the fridge. I'll do them side by side with the fresh ground tomorrow.

Anyone who wants to make a very minor fortune, get your patent application ready -- it may just work!

[HB]

Today was also a "getting to know you" day for the Mazzer Kony/Super Jolly pair with results similar to yesterday's outing.

I used Intelligentsia's Kid O's Organic Espresso to prepare four more pairs, rated on overall preference. Score today: Kony 2, Super Jolly 1, 1 draw. The draw was not a standout pair, about 2.5 on the SCAA espresso scoring sheet. The rest were 3.0 to 3.5 on crema color, 3.5 to 4.0 on crema consistency / persistence, 3.0 to 3.5 on taste balance, 3.5 on tactile balance -- all consistent with my daily espressos. Brew ratio of 80% and lowered the temperature one degree to 198F.

[HB]

Tony from Caffe Fresco is on hiatus for the summer...



but he's still roasting for his commercial accounts. He also sent a couple bags of Ambrosia Espresso Blend for the TGP and today I pulled three pairs. The grind setting was 1-1/2 notches finer than yesterday's Kid O. I bumped the temperature up a degree to 200F.

Caffe Fresco's blends are known for requiring a long degassing period, so I've been patiently waiting on these bags for over a week. If you want to impress your friends with brick red, gorgeously buttery crema, it's worth the wait. The blend itself is more acidic / fruity than the last two outings (think young red wine rather than chocolate bars). This morning the score is Kony 2, Super Jolly 1. I was tempted to toss the last pair because one of the shots ran a few seconds faster than the last two, but I cut off by color and rated it anyway (it turned out to be the Super Jolly basket). The two espressos differed considerably more than the other pairings, but were well within the "good to very good" range. The faster pulling (Super Jolly) shot had slightly less body and intensity than the other (Kony) shot; its cleaner finish made up for the difference. I think a tighter grind and lower dose could produce the same effect, though the dark crema lovers might wince. I'll give that a try tomorrow.

Thanks Tony for the coffee, I was anxious for a change of pace and your blend was just the ticket.

[CaffeFresco]

Hi Dan, glad you dug on the AEB. Yup, I am on a bit of a hiatus. Am still taking care of my brain-child though. Here's a sneak peek at the third draft of Fresco's new, upcoming website. Am working with a bunch of talented designers at treedesign.com to bring you guys a well thought-out and hip site.

http://treedesign.com/ashley/6005...co_website_new.pdf

Also working on Fresco's First Grungy Tee-Shirt with a talented tee-shirt artist who prints old-school using all organic cotton tee-shirts and dyes. Like with anything artistic, it takes time & patience.

I'll be back with the on-line roast&post madness soon, but in the meantime I'm banging the drum a bit!

[cannonfodder]

One thing I noticed while using the Kony was that the grounds appear to compact easier than the Super Jolly. I would get different volumes in the basket with similar weight prior to tamping. Again, this was just an observation, no real measurement was taken. My assumption was that the grinds from the Kony compacted more as they fell from the doser to the basket, or they laid in more uniformly with no air pockets hiding in the puck.

My dose would often be level or slightly below the sides of the basket with the Kony where as the SJ dose would be mounded or slightly above the basket sides. I also give the portafilter a single thump down on my tamping mat before it tamp to settle the grinds. The Kony shots appeared to settle more with the thump than the SJ did.

It is good to see that I was not imagining things in regard to the pick the grinder test. It in interesting to see you are having a slightly different experience with the Kony. I wonder if different styles of grinders are better paired with particular espresso machines or even espresso blends.

[jesawdy]

I wonder if different styles of grinders are better paired with particular espresso machines or even espresso blends.

It would not surprise me, but more importantly, Dan may have completely different taste profile preferences.

[another_jim]

The grind freezing experiment has come and gone, a miserable failure.

Small Macap (MXK):
-- Frozen: normal pour, taste 2/6, body 1.5/6 (13.4 grams remaining of the 13.5 frozen)
-- Fresh: tight to normal pour, taste 3.5/6, body 3/6

Robur
-- Frozen: good pour, taste 1.5/6, body 1/6. (14.8 grams remaining of the 15 grams frozen)
-- Fresh: tight pour, taste 3.5/6, body 4/6

Large Macap (MXCR)
--Frozen: Tight pour, taste 2/6, body 1.5/6
-- Fresh: Very tight pour, taste 3.5/6, body 3.5/6

The body really took a hit, with the frozen shots being borderline unpleasant in a dusty sort of way. The taste was basically flat and unobjectionable.

Please don't read anything into these results regarding freezing whole beans. A ground coffee particle is roughly 20 microns, a coffee bean roughly 1 centimeter. This means that ground coffee has on the order of a 1 billion times the surface area of whole beans. Freezing it for a day may be like freezing whole beans for a few million years.

[HB]

I wonder if different styles of grinders are better paired with particular espresso machines or even espresso blends.

I have no doubt that's true. Fond memories of the Elektra A3 evaluation linger in my mind and Jim's Elektra Microcasa Semiautomatica evaluation echoed the same praises. I expected to see a stark difference between these two grinders, but I'm not. It could be my lack of taste discernment, usage of "forgiving" espresso blends that perform similarly under diverse conditions, or a difference in equipment that you allude to like the E61 preinfusion "muddying" the taste.

Later I plan to pull out the Elektra Microcasa a Leva for a few rounds since it's known for eliciting clarity. It will be difficult to do equivalent comparisons of paired espressos because the brew temperature changes shot to shot. Another option is to take the two grinders to Counter Culture's espresso lab one Friday. They recently got a three group Synesso Cyncra installed and this would provide a good excuse to exercise it.

Today I felt like a day off from the TGP grind, so I intentionally chose a coffee for its intense, unusual character when served as espresso: Intelligentsia's Ethiopia Yirgacheffe. Unlike most of the HB membership, I was a latecomer to the single origin espresso party:



but they're now part of my regular rotation. My expectations are different for single origins; I don't look for taste balance, I look for taste originality (Do you handicap your single-origin espresso evaluations? elaborates further on this point). Today's Yirgacheffe espressos were pulled as tight ristrettos to maximize the opportunity for sweetness and increase the intensity. Although the shots were lemony bright by any standard, I loved the burst of floral aftertaste in the first inhalation after sipping.

It would not surprise me, but more importantly, Dan may have completely different taste profile preferences.

My taste profile preferences are much wider than years ago. Participating as a sensory judge at barista competitions, exploring ideas proposed in the forums, and regular barista jams at Counter Culture Coffee have broadened my coffee horizons. Five years ago I would have rushed to the sink to spit out the Yirgacheffe single origin espressos I just sampled; today I marvel in their flavor intensity and wonderful aroma. Go figure.

[another_jim]

It pays to do equipment testing with a prima-donna-ish blend or SO that can be taken all over the map; rather than something that is always consistent. I'm using Ambrosia for the first round of extraction tests, and this blend is much too consistent for taste testing. The differences between the shots from assorted doses and grinders are small enough that I'm thinking they are probably due to auto-suggestion.

I will get the solubles yield data at least; but as far as the taste goes, here's my ad for Caffe Fresco's Ambrosia:

"Don't want to mess with a lot of temperatures. pressures, distributions and all the rest of the malarkey? Use Ambrosia, it pours thick and tastes fat no matter how, or on what, you pull the shot."

[HB]

Re: Cimbali Max Grinder vs. the Cimbali Junior and Cadet Grinders by Ken Fox

First of all, thanks Ken for your contribution to the Titan Grinder Project. I know it's a lot of work to stage such a test and you've done your usual thorough job (frankly better than I could have!). Although I'm late in commenting, I would like to return to your point below:

Personally speaking, I find these results interesting however from my perspective, after using the Max daily for more than a month, I think the most persuasive reason to buy one is the increased certainty of getting a good shot without excessive fiddling with grinder settings. Although I had made the observation about the setting being less critical on the Max before I set up this tasting trial, the proof of that observation came as I used the grinders in this testing.

T.J. contacted me a few months back and offered a loan of a Cimbali Max. He asked for nothing in return, other than my opinion on whether it was worth bringing to the U.S. market. I used it daily for many weeks and my thoughts echo your comments above: Although I noted no significant taste difference, it's just easier to get the grind setting right. Minor flaws in distribution are punished less severely, resulting in less sink shots.

On a related note, Chris' Coffee loaned us the conical Macap MXK for EspressoFest last year and I held onto it for awhile afterward. The Macap is geared down to 400 RPM and the grounds "extrude" from it slowly. Based on the visual clumping, I expected uneven extractions would follow, but oddly enough, the Macap demanded less distribution fastidiousness than grinders like the Mazzer Mini that are nearly clump-free. I cannot explain why grounds with more visual clumping "lay out" better than grounds with less clumping and yet they do.

From the viewpoint of the barista, perhaps grinders can produce "bad" clumps and "harmless" clumps? Can we qualify these grinders' forgiveness factor? That's been at the top of my to-do list, i.e., understanding how the choice of equipment can contribute to realized benefits for the average home barista, not just theoretical benefits only attainable by the innately skilled and highly initiated.

[HB]

Have I mentioned lately how much I love the HB sponsors?

The equipment guys get most of the online press, but the coffee roasters deserve equal recognition for their efforts to source exceptional coffees. Intelligentsia Coffee Roasters has been with HB from day 1, as has Counter Culture Coffee. Caffe Fresco is another early supporter; Jim's recent comments on Ambrosia Espresso Blend underscores why it is popular and why the return of the "new and improved" Caffe Fresco website is indeed welcome news. PT's Coffee is the most recent roaster to join the HB sponsorship roles. I've known co-owner Jeff Taylor for years through the barista competitions and you'll recognize his dedication to specialty coffee from the moment you meet him. The guy just exudes enthusiasm.

Miguel Meza is the mind behind Paradise Roasters. He's been with HB from the site's first year. The last SCAA conference was my first opportunity to speak with him at length as we toured the showroom floor, meeting some of his favorite growers and sampling fine coffees and espressos. Miguel is quiet and unassuming, but he's already earned a reputation for sourcing and carefully roasting some of the best coffees online (e.g., Paradise Roasters Ethiopia Biloya Special). Miguel's contribution to the TGP is his Espresso Reserve 2007:

Signed and numbered bags, mine is #080

This Northern -Italian style blend uses our finest coffees from Brazil, Ethiopia and Sumatra. It is the culmination of years of perfecting this style - our most exquisite espresso blend yet. This blend was designed to excel in the rigors of the U.S. Barista Championship. Peter Middlecamp, Barista and owner of Blacksheep Coffee Cafe in South St Paul, Minnesota, used this blend to take 6th place in competition. Espresso Reserve is mild and sweet with complex notes of honey, nuts, berries, chocolate, and citrus. Only 500 numbered and signed bags will be produced.

It was my hope that such a blend would differentiate the two Titans. Indeed, unlike the prior sessions, it was a clean sweep this time around, Super Jolly 3, Kony 0. The differences that previous reviewers noted rose to the forefront with Miguel's coffee. The Kony espressos had greater citrus notes and a "drier" finish. Although all the espressos were good in their own right, it was easy to pick which was which by the brightness of the shot. If you enjoy a straight espresso that's "got a lot going on" in the cup, you'll want to give Espresso Reserve a try.

As I started to clean up, my thoughts lingered on Jim's comments the last few days and how the grind setting / dosing may influence the result for a particular grinder more than the grinder itself. So on a whim, I tightened the Kony's grind 1/2 notch, downdosed by 1 gram, and increased the brew ratio to ristretto range (60% versus the other espressos' 80%). By far the best of the series, a firm 4.0 espresso, which regrettably isn't all that common in my kitchen. Recommended brew parameters: 200F, 1.25 to 1.5 ounces, 30 second extraction, 16.5 grams.

The side-by-side comparisons are maddeningly difficult. Each morning it's taken more time that I anticipated, much to my wife's chagrin. I'm going through more coffee than ever. And I'm enjoying this learning experience immensely.