nixter wrote:I've actually been getting a bit of static in the last couple months. I suspect it's the cold dry winter air. Anyone else?

Jaa, I've been getting tons of static for the last month or so, with all types of beans. It's quite a drag, really.

Some dark home roasted stuff just flew all over the place. Finished it up and switched to some Barefoot Elemental, no more problems. This was 5 minutes after the previous beans, so the beans do make a difference.

mark

I've had my Vario for two weeks, and so far no sign of any static. Grinds are very fluffy and far less clumpy than my M4. I have the new board, and sometimes the auto sleep feature seems to work, and other times it doesn't. Overall I'm very happy with the grind quality, and almost no waste of coffee in the chute.

I've had my Baratza Vario for 3-4 weeks now (#986, IIRC). No static problems at all since Day One, and I just installed the new board (sleep mode, etc.) -- easy instructions from Kyle at Baratza included with the board, purchased from Chris' . . .

Cheers,
Jason

I've had my Baratza Vario for 3-4 weeks now (#986, IIRC). No static problems at all since Day One, and I just installed the new board (sleep mode, etc.) -- easy instructions from Kyle at Baratza included with the board, purchased from Chris' . . .

Cheers,
Jason

I've got #989.

Did you order from IDrinkCof...? Just curious.

I will be getting the new board as well from same source as you most likely as the aforementioned vendor doesn't seem to have it.

As far as static, it has some but easily tolerable, IMO.

The board appears to auto sleep when in the one of the programmed settings, espresso, drip, etc., but not manual for some reason, at least not in the 3 minute programmed time.

As far as grind quality goes, they look much better than my M4 stepless, fluffier, and less clumping. However, I have yet to taste any real difference in the cup. I have been pulling shots from the two over the last week or so, same dose and WDT, and can't say I can taste a significant difference. The M4 shots generally taste as good or better (perhaps a bit sweeter and more body).

Much has been written about this grinder producing better shots than a Mini, and on par with a SJ. Do the ceramic burrs need to be seasoned? I have probably ground only about a pound so far. Shouldn't even a relative newbie be able to tell the difference between these grinders, or is Silvia marring those distinctions?

My opinion is that if you can taste the grinder in your espresso shots, it might be a good time to thoroughly clean your grinder...

People do have very strong ideas about grinders tasting different and they love to place them in a linear scale. Reminds me of the scene in Dead Poets Society where poetry was explained by mapping poets into two dimensional scale. As you can see, poetry is more involved than coffee because it needs two dimensions.

From a statistical point of view, any sensible formalisation of "grinder X is better than Y, and on par with Z" is utterly impossible to establish. Espresso tastes like coffee (and water), because that's what it is made of. Espresso extraction is very complicated and has an immense effect on how the taste is reproduced in the cup. I don't deny that the grinder would not have an important role here, but talks about one quality grinder tasting "slightly better" or "on par" with some other quality grinder are, well, a bit silly, I think.

AFAIK the only way the grinder directly affects taste is that it heats beans and can create burnt flavours. It also indirectly affects extraction by producing different amounts of fines and different distribution of particle sizes in general, and by distributing grounds in basket differently (which can be rectified with grooming techniques). There probably are other factors also. Taken together, it is hard to see how such a complicated dependence between grinders and their (subjective) "tastes" could be explained on a linear scale.

JBSmoovee wrote:From a statistical point of view, any sensible formalisation of "grinder X is better than Y, and on par with Z" is utterly impossible to establish.

You're probably right, taste is always a subjective matter, and as scientific as you try and make these comparisons they're almost never black and white. However, its human nature to try and make these correlations. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here, right?

JBSmoovee wrote:You're probably right, taste is always a subjective matter, and as scientific as you try and make these comparisons they're almost never black and white. However, its human nature to try and make these correlations. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here, right?

Sure, it is very natural to make conclusions based on your own experience. The trouble starts when in forums like this one people start to repeat and combine conclusions made by other people...

JBSmoovee wrote:As far as grind quality goes, they look much better than my M4 stepless, fluffier, and less clumping. However, I have yet to taste any real difference in the cup. I have been pulling shots from the two over the last week or so, same dose and WDT, and can't say I can taste a significant difference. The M4 shots generally taste as good or better (perhaps a bit sweeter and more body).

Much has been written about this grinder producing better shots than a Mini, and on par with a SJ. Do the ceramic burrs need to be seasoned? I have probably ground only about a pound so far. Shouldn't even a relative newbie be able to tell the difference between these grinders, or is Silvia marring those distinctions?

It's good you are doing the comparisons. In these types pf comparisons, it's best to grind into two identical baskets (I scratch below the lip to mark them), shuffle, and then pull shots. The most convincing result is when you can easily tell after a few shots which grinder is which. This is what happened when a group of us tested it against the Mini. A more subtle difference is detected if you can't consistently tell them apart, but if after a week or two of paired shots, one grinder significantly outscores the other.