As someone who has always single dosed with my Macap M4; dosing with a full (well partially full) hopper has been frustrating the last couple days - as I do not have the technique (timing) down - and I am wasting a lot of coffee (as compared to the little waste of individual dosing.)

A lot of coffee drops drops down very quickly using the 'normal' method of a full hopper. Does seem to need a coarser grind - but when hopper is nearly empty - oops! here comes a gusher.

Howard

JonR10 wrote:Sorry for my skepticism (sp?), but is this because of inherent grinder attributes or could it possibly be influenced by your preconceptions or perhaps even by your facility (practice or lack of practice) using a method you have clearly preferred in the past against something new and unfamiliar?

If I was to attempt such a test by myself, I feel there is a strong possibility that I might have a difficult time adjusting my style and technique to having a hopper full (in a short amount of time to practice) and so I could imagine seeing a similar result in the opposite direction from your "jaw dropping moment".


Now I am thinking a little more seriously about working out a side-by-side double blind test.

Jon, all I can say is try it. Dialing the grinder in for one or the other is pretty much the same sort of job, and dosing and distribution using the Robur shouldn't be different either. It certainly made little to no difference on the SJ.

I switched straight back from my new-found single-dosing grind to my marked previous setting and was stunned. I was also taken by surprise by the SJ since i have always either just filled it to the throat or single-dosed with it. The differences - particularly on the Nino - weren't subtle. If they were I would have been much more circumspect about reporting them here.

I was not expecting the result and certainly wasn't looking for it. I was hoping to save myself a bundle of money and single dose with a Robur that has been offered at an outstanding price.

So I was honestly neither expecting (from reports here) or hoping to note any significant difference. The single-dose shots had been extracting well and consistently and were tasting good, and the Nino shots were preferable to the SJ shots in appearance and in the cup pretty much as one would expect. Since I had never tried the Guatemalan in the SJ previously, I did not attribute the lack of sweetness to single-dosing, but rather to the SJ itself. The big difference for the Nino got me to drag out the (unused) hopper for the SJ, and I found the sweetness coming through with less than 100g in the hopper.

Far from anticipating this result, I was in fact so surprised by it that I carried on testing for several days longer than I had anticipated because I really couldn't quite believe it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that on the Nino and - to a much lesser but still significant extent on the Super Jolly - single dosing gives one inferior results above all in taste complexity and balance, but also in mouthfeel and to a lesser extent crema persistence. Crema appearance didn't seem to be affected.

Cheers

Mike

michaelbenis wrote: Far rom anticipating this result, I was in fact so surprised by it that I carried on testing for several days longer than I had anticipated because I really couldn't quite believe it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that on the Nino and - to a much lesser but still significant extent on the Super Jolly - single dosing gives one inferior results above all in taste complexity and balance...

That is very interesting indeed Mike.
We will have to try it (I have some local friends that may be able to help with this)

howard seth wrote:A lot of coffee drops drops down very quickly using the 'normal' method of a full hopper. Does seem to need a coarser grind - but when hopper is nearly empty - oops! here comes a gusher.

The secret is don't use the standard hopper. The burr throat is a lot smaller than the hopper throat, so the beans outside the burr throat are not contributing to the bean mass column.



The tubing is 2¼in extruded acrylic held in place with 3 socket head grub screws.
MC4 : 3-M6 x 6mm
MXK : 3-M6 x 12mm [pictured]

The white cap is 1½in PVC end cap. It weighs about 45g. Additional weight can be added.

For anyone who wants to give it a go, I have several pieces of the clear acrylic in 2¼" [~57.2mm] and 2¾" [~70mm].
Screws, only M6x6
PM with address and I'll send. A donation to Coffee Kids would be nice

Thanks for the response Ian: that looks like a possible winning solution.

Howard

Sorry, Jon. Used for illustration only. PAX.

Others, NO

JonR10 wrote:Without blind A/B tasting it's difficult for me to buy into any assertions made so far about the subtle differences in taste.

Me, YES

JonR10 wrote:When I got my own GS3 I did some unscientific comparisons using both machines side by side and found I was able to generate very similar cups with saturated vs. E61 HX. Sure, the flavor and texture profiles of the straight shots were slightly different but most folks I know would be hard-pressed to say which was "better" (it would come down to a matter of prefernce rather than absolute quality in the cup).

Decades ago, the high end audio community abandoned blind A-B testing as it reveals only the most glaring deficiencies. Long term listening was found more revealing as one could concentrate on specific aspects relative to other aspects on a wide programme range : Do the reeds become strident with the orchestra in full voice or do they become grainy when a cappella.

If you consume a pound of a favorite coffee and tweak it in with a burr load, then try 1-shot dosing, it's pretty much a no brainer.

Different grinders respond differently. The MC4 seems happy with about 3in of beans plus 50g and the MXK likes a bit more load, about 75-100g. These values are for solo, not doppio, shots, and as always YMMV

cafeIKE wrote:Sorry, Jon. Used for illustration only. PAX.

Peace, and no worries.

cafeIKE wrote:Decades ago, the high end audio community abandoned blind A-B testing as it reveals only the most glaring deficiencies. Long term listening was found more revealing....

I was kinda-sorta alluding to the long term use when I mentioned facility and also when I mentioned having time to practice with a new M.O..

For that sort of "long term testing" I believe I would need to order the same coffee for a few weeks in a row and dial it in and experience the extraction space for each style of operation more than once (start with single dose for a week, then go to loaded hopper for a week, then back to single dose...etc.)

But in this case Michael claims to have experienced a glaring difference and you have said it's a "no brainer", so the difference should be easily recognized by a blind A/B comparison. If no such glaring and obvious difference exists then maybe it starts to look like a matter of personal taste preference.

JonR10 wrote:But in this case Michael claims to have experienced a glaring difference and you have said it's a "no brainer", so the difference should be easily recognized by a blind A/B comparison. If no such glaring and obvious difference exists then maybe it starts to look like a matter of personal taste preference.

Indeed, I see no reason to abandon blind testing. Even with its somewhat limited use, it's a much more quantifiable, communicable testing procedure. The things that slip by it seem sure to prove more esoteric and/or a matter of preference. I'd say that both blind testing and long-term testing are of value in their own ways, each worth doing.

I'd say that both blind testing and long-term testing are of value in their own ways, each worth doing.

Definitely. I was simply doing what was possible for me at the time. I wouldn't for a moment claim that blind testing doesn't have a valuable role in any of this.

shadowfax wrote:Indeed, I see no reason to abandon blind testing.

Doooood. Let's make it happen