cafeIKE wrote: Decades ago, the high end audio community abandoned blind A-B testing as it reveals only the most glaring deficiencies.

Mostly it revealed deficiencies in high-end audio marketing techniques, but that's neither here nor there.

Blind A/B testing is the fastest and most valuable testing if you want to make an ophthalmologist's opinion.

Is it better or worse? If it is better or worse, a blind A/B test will repeatably show you that the person has made an opinion based on their perceived qualitative judgment, or that they cannot.
If you want to know whether these speakers of the same quality handle bits of parts differently, long term use is useful, but using a good source for testing in the first place (I love to use a variety of classical pieces from Brahms to Wagner and back again, the standard 'Steely Dan' bits, and then some marches and some outright thrash metal) you can have a fairly good idea of what those speakers are capable of, and their strong or weak points.
But there are a whole raft of reasons that companies that have audiophiles as their demo have abandoned A/B testing that have nothing to do with any problems associated with blind A/B testing...

If I had to choose one or the other approach for food or music: I would give the edge to long-term (non-blind) testing over short term blind testing.
Why? unless the blind tests are repeated long term - you may get the novelty affect - such as a bright flavor - or some other exaggerated novelty aspect may have great appeal for a few times - then long term may be tiresome.

Howard

howard seth wrote: unless the blind tests are repeated long term - you may get the novelty affect - such as a bright flavor

This is usually only a factor if you're unfamiliar with the media that you're testing. Someone that doesn't drink espresso but likes coffee, someone that likes music but hasn't had any real experiences above an I-pod, someone that eats a lot of hamburgers, but doesn't really have great steak a lot, etc.
If you're familiar with the media, you'll be able to identify those outlyers for what they are.

OTOH, they still keep selling that damned pumpkin spice latte, in the face fo all evidence that it shouln't be popular!

OTOH, they still keep selling that damned pumpkin spice latte, in the face fo all evidence that it shouln't be popular!

Tell me about it. Once many years ago. I was seduced into buying some Hazelnut coffee at Treasure Island Supermarket (Chicago) by the strong compelling smell emanating from the open Hazelnut coffee bean barrels. I drank a few cups, freshly ground, happily enough ... but by the 4th or 5th cup I threw out the beans and had to scour my grinder; I wake up in cold sweats of horror over this to this very day!

Howard

howard seth wrote: Once many years ago. I was seduced into buying some Hazelnut coffee at Treasure Island Supermarket

*sigh* I keep trying to tell my friends that you flavour coffees, not beans.
Ya don't rub the damned cow with spices, do ya? No, you rub the meat!
I have a bit of hazelnut sugar water on the counter, but it ends up in puddings and hot cocoas far more often than in a coffee. Of all the coffee syrups in the house, not a lot of them actually get used for coffee. Not a lot of them actually get used for much, come to think of it.

Yes, I concluded after my experience with the flavored beans; much safer to add flavors - of some kind - later in the coffee making process. (I still don't like Hazelnut flavor anymore, though. ) But we are getting off topic, I am afraid ...

Howard

Flavored coffee conversation aside.....


We did a little blind sampling today using side-by-side Robur grinders. One was a Robur E with the hopper loaded and the other was my doser Rober loaded per shot.

(DAMMIT Nicholas! We forgot to take pictures!! )

The coffee we used was too young and too bright for us to get really good shots and the very best of the day were barely passable so I'm not going to post data.

So why am I posting at all?


Because during the dialing-in process it was quite evident to me (and my fellow tasters) that there was no real difference in flavor or body/consistency of the shots from the two grinders. Also, the blind testing confirmed that the tasters were not able to identify which shots came from the loaded hopper and which came from the single-dose grinder.


The most interesting result?
We pulled better shots of the uber-bright coffee with the MYPRESSI than we were getting from the GS3


We will try this again on another day when we have some coffee we know better and we can pull GOOD shots for tasters to enjoy with relish and then maybe (MAYBE) we can judge better. But for now I remain unconvinced that loading a hopper has any effect of flavor or body/mouthfeel/consistency

JonR10 wrote: The coffee we used was too young and too bright for us to get really good shots and the very best of the day were barely passable so I'm not going to post data.

What a perfect opportunity to test the theory that grinding a half hour in advance can 'age' a too-fresh coffee into usability!
It's not too late, is it?

Jon: I await - with eagerness - the results of your doser experiments with more mature coffee!

Howard

Psyd wrote:It's not too late, is it?

Too late for me - I didn't like the coffee so Nicholas took it home with him.

OTOH I have some home roasted Yemen and Brasil+Uganda PLUS some Amaro Guyo from West Coast Roasters that when combined make a lovely dark choco-bomb, especially in a cappa