Marshall wrote:I think you are taking the personal experiences of a few posters on H-B and expanding it to a rule that bears further testing.

Yeah, maybe. I guess I was stretching what I found+ what I read to what's 'generally accepted' then. Too bad unfortunately, because I did testings side by side and thought the Pharos consistently taste brighter than the Major. But most of us know, the Cremina isn't the most precise I guess I have to get another machine to nail down as many possibility as possible.

Marshall wrote:P.S. You must be the only person in State College looking at a computer screen today, instead of a football game.

Probably. But I am pretty sure I am the only one here that traded the ticket money for coffee. Hahaha.

another_jim wrote:You may want to do more tasting, and even more importantly, get precise with the dose and grind setting, before characterizing the grinder's taste.

Jim,
Thanks for your in-depth explanation. I will try to do more tests then. I think I really need a 'better' machine that is more accurate for this and that two side by side random-order testings are probably not enough. One of the reason I came out with that conclusion is maybe because I am drinking what I think I should be tasting outside the testings.

Continuing this thought experiment, consider a grinder that produced an extremely large variation of grain sizes. If we can safely assume that the level of extraction of any one grain is based upon the time, temperature and flow, then from the resulting cake we would get a product mixture showing a range from severe under-extraction to severe over-extraction. I suspect that this cup would be unable to exhibit the "clear separation of flavors" that we associate with grinders producing the tightest variations around their bimodal distributions - as per the big conicals' reputations anyway.

As has been pointed out by others here, a lemon may be a fruit, but that does not translate to sourness - which is associated with under-extraction - being fruitiness. It's odd to conclude, then, that this class of grinders could be considered "sour" when the flavor profile is a function of parameters of the extraction process as opposed to the grinding process.

Having a poor quality flat burr grinder, that has a mechanism closer to a mill stone than anything else, I can't help but wonder if the flat burr crushes the particles more than conical burrs might. This may make more oil available to contribute to the flavours. I know some people recommend flat burrs for french press based on flavour.

To me the conical burrs seem more likely to separate the particles because of the larger incline plane. This would separate larger particles from bruising smaller ones. Which would be similar to the difference between a dull burr and a sharp burr. I don't have that experience but would be interested if someone else had an opinion.

I will throw in my two non-scientific cents in here. I own the Kony that is mentioned earlier in this thread. Compared to the Rocky which it replaced, it did offer a slighter brighter taste in the cup. For what it is worth, you could say that the Rocky was extracting a flat taste relatively speaking and that the Kony was extracting properly. But as another_jim stated, the Kony was brighter than the Jolly quite often in the test, and it was that, among other observations, that led me to buy it. I have not regretted that decision in the +/-3 years that I have owned it. FWIW...