cafeIKE wrote:To assert that the grinders are not too dissimilar is, well, hubris (IMO).

Whatever.

You say that our two matching grinders were not similar enough for this, but in the same breath you apparently assert a fairly subjective (one-person) 2-week immersion proves something?

Forgive me for remaining skeptical.

I've lost interest in having this conversation. I wanted to explore if any taste difference can be discerned in a blind test but frankly some of the negativity encountered here makes the engagement tip towards unpleasant rather than fun and interesting.

I will always strive to improve...but I guess I've lost my inquisitiveness about sinking shots and loading hoppers as it now seems I'm chasing "results" that I personally may not be able to taste in the cup.


And just maybe the issue is moot for someone who like doubles and triples.

Also sceptical. Seems 'optimistic' that, without confirmation, it was assumed the grinders were the same when one is brushed clean and the other isn't. On the MXK, for the same dose, a 1 tooth delta is required to obtain same shot parameters if the chute is brushed clear while grinding vs not.

The idea started when the MXK arrived last January. It's gargantuan hopper was immediately replaced with soda can and tamper bean weight. Finding the results less than stellar relative to its predecessor, the La Cimbali CMH, and finding the taste varied tamper on / tamper off, experimentation began with a small water bottle to control the 'bean column' load.

Over the following months, many variations in load and weight were tried before posting A Tamper is Too Heavy for Grinder Anti-Popcorn Remedy Perhaps " when pulling singles of the same coffee for weeks on end with less than Ultimo grinders " should be appended.

Jon, here's my take.

I blind test whenever possible to pick the best coffees, procedures, and occasionally equipment. I report the results. There's people who repeat the tests for themselves and accept or reject the tests, and those who try the suggested course of action and either accept or reject it. Pro or con, they are happy to hear about things to try.

Then there's the peanut gallery. The taste of their unexamined espresso is punishment enough.

So both "sides" are skeptical of the other perspective, but that is probably good in science and this is essentially a science experiment. Jon, I hope you do run it as I am interested in the results as I'm sure are many others. If anyone doesn't buy your results that is great, they should run an experiment that they think is better designed. (I'll be interested in that, too.) As long as the two sides treat each other with respect the whole thing will be fun to read and educational.

Hugh

ps I haven't decided which side I think has a more compelling argument and that is why I'm especially interested in the results.

If there are enough people in the south of England who haven't lost the will to live over all this I would be happy to do a double blind trial either at my house with my Ninos and lever machines - or someone else's machines. If we are going to report findings we need to be sure the method is suitably consistent in methodology, brew pressure profile and control, temperature control, choice and dose of beans etc. for us not to find ourselves up against a wall.

It's curious that this thread has taken the turn it has. We need to ask ourselves why. After all the very similar weight of a tamper thread didn't.... (Perhaps it should have been density?)

I must admit I find it both amusing and disappointing that so many here who are willing to experiment with practically every aspect of equipment and technique have been willing to opine from theory about single-shot dosing without trying even the most rudimentary of experiments - experiments we nevertheless find perfectly adequate to evaluate roast or bean preferences: making a cup of coffee and trying it! Or even grinding a dose of coffee and dare I say looking at it!

I was quite coy in my initial comments so will be quite unambiguous now.

My findings?

1) There is a very obvious difference to the naked eye between single-dose grind and hoppered grind. I had no preconceptions about what this might mean either way and was quite happy to theorise any which way.

2) There are clear differences in the cup for single-dosing and hoppered use on both the Super Jolly and Elektra Nino grinders, in the order of differences between grinders. Both grinders perform more consistently and deliver more coherent and more nuanced shots with more complex mouthfeel when used as designed. It would take anyone very little time to give it a "kitchen" try. No more than to dial in a grind. The double blind can come later, preferably dosing appropriate beans appropriately. Even just dosing the SJ up to the top of the throat effected a noticeable improvement (after which I brought the hopper down from the attic).

3) Continuing to use both grinders as designed after my initial comparison week but with other coffees I know and use regularly, which were not included in the original comparison tests, I find I am rediscovering them on the Super Jolly. It is delivering much better results (as above) with around 100-150g in the hopper. The Nino is also performing better with a similar fill (I used to keep only enough beans in the hopper to stop popcorning). Despite the improvement on the Super Jolly, the difference between them has actually widened as a result. Which is why I have bought another Nino.

My conclusions:

1) We have allowed ourselves to become so obsessed with wanting to reconcile bean and grind freshness with saving coffee and money (no pre-shot purges when single-dosing) that we have lost the plot with single-dosing. It is convenient. It is cheaper. It focuses on the technology. But it delivers less consistent shots and shots that even at their best are inferior to the shots obtained using the grinders as intended.

2) We are aware that the big commercial grinders deliver more consistently excellent shots, yet we're reluctant to put up with their size so we mess with the hoppers. I reckon we've quite possibly lost the plot there, too. I get through coffee quickly, especially as I now purge before any shot after a pause of any length of time (15 mins), but have found that filling around 150-250g at a time into the hooper and keeping the beans at this level delivers consistently better results. It's costing me more in coffee, but I'm getting much more pleasure for my money.

3) If my findings with the SJ and Nino are generally applicable as I suspect they are considering the differences as well as the similarities in their design, behaviour and taste profile, and it is true that much of the Titan Grinder Project was conducted single-dosing, then the performance and consistency of the grinders may have been underestimated, as well as the differences between flat and conical burr grinders, possibly with the exception of the hand grinder.

4) The difference between single-dosing and hoppered use may be less for some of the very high dose shots preferred in the New World. I never dose much more than 17.5g. The differences are still there at that end, although less distinct, but then one tends to get less nuanced shots at those doses, too.

This is a topic of some significance. Basically people have been advocating an unorthodox use of grinders on the assumption that they would perform equally well in this way simply because it was convenient and cheaper. Incredibly it appears to be an assumption that has largely been untested. It has in my immodest opinion also effectively constituted misleading advice.

Jim suggests that consistency is not the whole game and from what was found when placing the grinds from conical burr grinders under the microscope I believe he may have a point there.... but within reason. Maybe there is a particle size consistency window- go beyond it and things get worse....

All I know is that I accepted the premises and practice of single dosing in good faith. Then I experimented and found that these big grinders work much better when used as designed. I'm now inclined to believe that the whole single-dosing thing is a blind alley. If someone's doing it because they find it the quickest and most convenient way of getting a fresh shot and they don't mind the compromise, who's to gainsay them?

But if you want to enjoy the finest possible coffee, I'd say use the grinder as it was designed and purge enough coffee before each shot to refresh the burr chamber.

And before someone fires back again that they won't believe what I have found until someone does a double-blind test.... that's fine, but mostly people here are happy to compare experiences, believing that impressions on the palate are what this is all about. So why the sudden immovable scientific rigour? This is hardly a drug trial. I'm afraid that all the denials that have appealed to scientific method in defence of this untested, unorthodox practice sound like very little else to me than the Emperor shouting about his new clothes.

Cheers

Mike

Simply put: I disagree with much of the above diatribe .

michaelbenis wrote:I'm afraid that all the denials that have appealed to scientific method in defence of this untested, unorthodox practice sound like very little else to me than the Emperor shouting about his new clothes.

I might assert that the same could be said for your personal impressions made alone, at home, based on purely subjective "evidence".

EDIT: I'm at least willing to say "to each his own" and also that it seems possible that the "difference" (if there is any) comes out when pulling longer (lungo?) shots from a single dose. I am not, however, willing to argue any of it...and no amount of lengthy wordy posting is any substitute for a "real" test.

Sure, Jon. And you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and do that test, and all kudos to you for it. I look forward to reading the results.

And I'm happy to do similar tests here in the UK.

So far, however, you have not done any extensive comparisons so everything you post is simply opinion.

I am posting my opinion based on detailed but subjective comparisons to encourage other people to get the best out of their grinders in their homes, especially if they have only been single-dosing so far on the word of others who have not done extensive comparisons to date.

michaelbenis wrote:So far, however, you have not done any extensive comparisons so everything you post is simply opinion.

Please refrain from making statements about what I have and have not done.
You simply do not have that knowledge.

I have two grinders for espresso. They are vastly different machines, one always has beans in the hopper and the other does not. Additionally, I have had numerous jams and get-togethers where I have loaded hoppers on both of my grinders (this across a fairly wide array of grinders over the past several years).

Sure it was an assumption on my part, Jon. But you still do not post that you have done any comparisons of the same grinders single-dosing and not. I assume you would if you had.

This is not about you, Jon.

It's not about Jim, either, who early in this thread acknowledged that maybe he could have done more testing of this kind. He didn't. He assumed he didn't need to.

Sometimes we make assumptions. We do so because they seem reasonable. The single-dosing assumption seemed reasonable enough to me, too. Until I made the comparisons.

I'm sure if you were in the same position you would have said something too.

michaelbenis wrote:I'm sure if you were in the same position you would have said something too.

Unbelievable.
If I want to say something, I will say it myself. No need to put words in my mouth.

I did attempt a head-to-head comparison recently (or maybe you already forgot). I asserted that our blind test was invalid and inconclusive, but that my personal impressions upon dialing in were: if there was a difference I couldn't taste it; and so to me it wasn't the "night and day" difference you seem to find.

So as far as the assertions that your way is the ONLY way to get the most out of a grinder?
Well, let's just say that I am still skeptical.