malling wrote:While you might be able to do it with flats vs conicals (if you are no average joe), I doubt you'll be able to do it with any of these conicals mentioned in this thread.

Or even not an "average joe." I have been told (by someone who would know) that the Roasters Guild did a blind comparison of a Mazzer Robur (conical) and a Mahlkonig K30 (flat), and they could not tell the difference.

Good taste-test comparison methodology is not secret, you could probably learn how to run a valid test from Wiki. So it's something of a disappointment that they're almost never performed correctly when coffee is the subject.

On multiple occasions, in a coffee lab/class setting, I had no problem distinguishing shots ground with a K30, from those ground with a Robur, pulled variously on an Aurelia Competizione and a GS/5. On the other hand, in similar circumstances (2 grinders - 2 machines - same, familiar beans), I couldn't tell the difference between shots ground by a K30 and shots ground with a Junior Max Hybrid.

None of my tests were "blind." Valid? Probably more so than most blind tests, where blinding compromises shot quality and introduces a lot of "noise." I've been around more than a few people with better palates than mine. Mine's pretty good -- not golden maybe -- but good enough that I can trust it not to be fooled by a brand name.

Want a palate? Another Jim has a great one. When he writes about a shot, you can taste it yourself. I get a thousand times more out of reading his posts than I do out of SCAA tests.

Rich

Another Jim has a great one

I've never met Jim but tend to take whatever he says as "truth" myself when it comes to espresso. He's put in the time and effort to learn all he can and shares it readily (if not with a little sarcasm on occasion).

FWIW, a while ago Jim wrote that blind tasting was important (or imperative), but perhaps he's altered his viewpoint?

ds wrote:Anfim Super Caimano with titanium burrs is phenomenal.

Is it? I sold mine for a Compak K10 which is far more phenomenal. Now I sold my K10 for a Robur which is far more phenomenal.

I think it's a matter of fashion. Big flat is hot right now, big conical was hot a couple of years ago and will be hot again in a couple of years.

peacecup wrote:FWIW, a while ago Jim wrote that blind tasting was important (or imperative), but perhaps he's altered his viewpoint?

If it's not blind; its a psych quiz. If it's blind, it's a taste test.

That's where we part company.

If it's blind and the shots aren't pulled "best shot" -- which they almost can't be in the sort of blinded testing that's set up around here -- it's not a taste test, it's a waste of time.

At home, I make shots which are fully dialed-in for my equipment and pulled within seconds of grinding. So, am not interested in comparisons based on shots which are pulled any other way; and am not particularly interested in panels which consist of people I don't know, and/or aren't corrected for recognition (as by ABX testing).

Statistical projections made on the basis of extremely small sample sizes, are unconvincing; at least as statistical projections. However, phenomenological evaluations (i.e., words, not numbers) of the grinders by people whom I respect are very helpful. A group which expressly, specifically and very much includes Jim.

The only grinder comparison I've seen with good "scientific sampling," taste-test comparison methodology (there may be others, it just happens to be the only one I've seen) was the Listov-Saabye/Pope study done in 2013 which was completely flawed by the study's basing it's "no preference" for conic vs burr on the basis of sampling espresso grinders for brew. (Which is just frikkin' typical.) Unsurprisingly a bulk grinder (presumably a Bunn G something, considering that the "Pope" of the study is Randy Pope) ruled them all in a fast and dirty 2 cup sample/large panel comparison.

Jim's stated his conclusion in favor of blinding, I've stated mine in favor of "best shot." I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking -- just explaining it -- and doubt there's any profit to be had from arguing it further.

Bottom line: I don't put sunglasses and baseball caps on my grinders to anonymize before using them at home, and trust my psyche not to be overawed by a brand name when drinking coffee elsewhere.

Rich

boar_d_laze wrote:Jim's stated his conclusion in favor of blinding, I've stated mine in favor of "best shot." I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking -- just explaining it -- and doubt there's any profit to be had from arguing it further.

I agree.

There's nothing wrong in judging Barista competitions non-blind, since its the entire experience that is being judged, including the match up of narrative expectations and taste confirmation. But narrative can also influence taste in ways that are just plain weird: people in bars swear by the various premium Vodkas, but Smirnoff has won every blind taste.

another_jim wrote:There's nothing wrong in judging Barista competitions non-blind, since its the entire experience that is being judged, including the match up of narrative expectations and taste confirmation. But narrative can also influence taste in ways that are just plain weird: people in swear by the various premium Vodkas, but Smirnoff has been won every blind taste.

I think people are so influenced by what they see on the counters of the leading shops and by the H-B bandwagon effect that I put very little stock in individual reports of taste differences among grinders.

And that's why you use a Rocky.

Rich