cannonfodder wrote:I still have not convinced myself that I prefer the Kony over the Super Jolly, or the Cimbali Jr.

I need to do some amateur cupping and a few blind shot tests this weekend to convince myself the differences are not part of my imagination. Given the perceived cup differences, I should be able to pick out the Kony 99% of the time.

speaking as one who has "convinced myself" of many things with coffee that have later been disproven in my own mouth on blind tasting, I would second the idea that any "convincing" when one knows the operative variables, be made with a great deal of caution.

I would be shocked if it turned out that all commercial conicals make "better" shots than all commercial planars. There are simply too many variables in espresso preparation, and a conclusion such as "conicals beat planars" would simply not square with the reality of the complexity of espresso as I know it. There may be a super grinder out there whose grind product tastes better than the grind product of any other grinder, however I'm skeptical.

There are lots of reasons for preferring one grinder over another, such things as doser function and cleanliness and bean waste and maybe even heat. We shall see if there is a standout great grinder there. If I could simply go out and spend XX dollars and have my espressos jump up a level in quality, I'll be among the first. But I have a feeling the results will not really be all that clear, and if subjected to any do-able number of blind shot comparisons, the likelihood of proving anything (among a sample of competent grinders) is probably not all that high. Or, if a difference is found it will likely be sufficiently slight that it won't rationally be a reason to go out and buy that grinder in favor of a group of other grinders that may have their own advantages.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:I would be shocked if it turned out that all commercial conicals make "better" shots than all commercial planars. There are simply too many variables in espresso preparation, and a conclusion such as "conicals beat planars" would simply not square with the reality of the complexity of espresso as I know it.

Even this early in the review, I'm already convinced that you are correct. Given all the recent buzz, I was prepared to be blown away by the conicals. But thus far my venerable flat burr Super Jolly has held its own very well.

Now if only the Robur wasn't so honkin' huge...

RapidCoffee wrote:The Daterra is a nice mellow Brazil, with no striking flavor characteristics apparent in the Robur grind, perhaps better blended than as a SO. I'll do some taste comparisons with the MXK and SJ grinders later today, then sample the Ambrosia blend.

Speaking of commercial roasts: there was a very welcome surprise waiting for me in the mail today. Rocket Coffee Roasters has generously contributed 5 pounds of their classic espresso blend to the Titan Grinder Project:
5 pounds of beans (and a T-shirt!)

Half of this will go in the freezer for the other Titans. Thanks, Larry!

I told Larry to hold off on my shipment. I will be out of town all next week and did not want it sitting around.

If my observation about the Kony highlighting the bright flavors of a blend are correct, then using a low toned coffee should result in a more balanced and clean cup. I have a bag of Daterra I was going to use for my cupping and shot tests this weekend. The Kony should bring out the higher points of the coffee while providing that thick and buttery cup.

I dropped the base off the Kony today to put the portafilter fork back on and snapped a couple of photos to show the electronics. I also decided to take the burrs out to see how much coffee they were holding onto. I was surprised by how much coffee was caked in burrs. I cleaned them up and took some macro photos of both burr assemblies. I was going to post them with a few comments but got a call from work and had to tend to a database issue, I will get them posted in a day or two.

It's a pity you didn't order a Casadio GC98; 210rpm.... I'm very curious about the further progress in testing.

Greetings \\//

Marcus

nobbi4711 wrote:It's a pity you didn't order a Casadio GC98; 210rpm...

If you'd care to send us a Casadio grinder, I'd be delighted to add it to the project.

FWIW, Casadio grinders did come up during preliminary discussions. I (for one) was intrigued by Teme's review of the Instantaneo on Espresso Passione. But these grinders are not yet being distributed in the US (at least, not to my knowledge).

And while we're on the subject of supplying the Titan grinders for our review:

another_jim wrote:Finally, I'd like to add my personal thanks to Jim Piccinich of 1st-Line for sponsoring and sitting still for this process -- it goes waaay beyond anything any company has done when sponsoring product reviews.

+1. Without the generous and patient sponsorship of Jim Piccinich at 1st-Line, this review would not have been possible. Thanks, Jim!

Because you seem to be gravitating towards the idea that grinder type is going to produce some identifiable (i.e. statistically defensible?) differences in the espresso in the cup, it might be well to clearly state some testable hypotheses as to why this may be so, before you go any further.

So, what are some likely hypotheses? Here are some off-the-cuff ideas:

1. Heat from flat burr grinders degrades certain compounds in the beans (does anybody know what these are, or how they effect espresso in the cup?). Therefore, espresso made from flat-ground burrs will taste more XXXX than does espresso made with conical burrs.

2. Conical burrs result in more rounded, even, coffee particles (if this turns out to be the case - this could also be a testable hypothesis). Rounded, even, grinds effect espresso in the cup by (does anyone know?). Therefore, espresso made from conical burrs will taste more XXXX than does espresso made from flat burrs.

3. More evenly-ground coffee compresses better in a PF basket - more weight per unit volume, more even distribution = more complete extraction? Jim has given us some guidance on the effects of complete extraction, so the XXXX ground coffee (whichever is more even) will produce more XXXX results (e.g. complete extraction results) than does the less-even grinder.

Clearly, I'm no expert in either grinding or extracting espresso. But if you don't have some "a priori" hypotheses, you'll end up with a lot unsubstantiated claims, which one can already find in sufficient quantity on the Internet.

Will blind taste tests enable anyone to differentiate between grinders? I suspect that there are far too many other variables in espresso making for the subtleties of grinder differences to be noticeable, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Ultimately, one's choice of grinder will rely on a variety of other reasons like space, aesthetics, ease of use, etc.

PC

peacecup wrote:Because you seem to be gravitating towards the idea that grinder type is going to produce some identifiable (i.e. statistically defensible?) differences in the espresso in the cup, it might be well to clearly state some testable hypotheses as to why this may be so, before you go any further.
...
But if you don't have some "a priori" hypotheses, you'll end up with a lot unsubstantiated claims, which one can already find in sufficient quantity on the Internet.

IMHO, the primary TGP focus is a descriptive, qualitative evaluation of high-end grinders, especially conical burr grinders. The quantitative aspects are an interesting sideline, to be pursued as resources permit. It's unlikely we will turn up any definitive answers in the early stages of this project, and there will probably be some missteps. (As I like to tell my students, if we knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call it research. )

Preliminary quantitative measurements can be important, even when the hypotheses are extremely general. If you want an initial hypothesis, here's one:

Different grinders produce measurably different particle size and shape distributions, and this has an impact on taste.

Suppose the particle size distribution plots showed no difference between grinders, but our taste buds told us otherwise? Then we'd know that particle size measurements are useless for grinder evaluation. But now that we've got supportive preliminary data, it's time to develop and refine hypotheses, and design experiments for testing them.

Please keep in mind that we're still in the first phase of this project. The Titans only began circulation a week ago, and look how much has already been accomplished!

Let me just say that I appreciate how much effort you all are putting into this project. My comments are motivated by my genuine interest in seeing you get the most of your efforts.

But now that we've got supportive preliminary data, it's time to develop and refine hypotheses, and design experiments for testing them.

Both you and Dave have said that there are perceptible differences in espresso in the cup - is this the preliminary data? To quote Ken, whom I trust to have a much greater knowledge of things espresso than I do myself:

speaking as one who has "convinced myself" of many things with coffee that have later been disproven in my own mouth on blind tasting, I would second the idea that any "convincing" when one knows the operative variables, be made with a great deal of caution.

I maintain that any reports of differences in results ought to be from blind tests for the reason Ken notes. It would be simple to work out a formula like:

grind two doses each taste test, load two baskets (with hidden ID marks), flip a coin to see which one is used, and report results BEFORE looking at the ID.

PC

Ken Fox wrote:I had a conversation about the mechanics of conical vs. planar grinders yesterday with Rick "Javaman" Knowlan of Vancouver.

From our conversation it appears highly doubtful that these different grinder types were originally developed for reasons of perceived grind quality differences, rather before the development of electrical motors, it would have been difficult to produce enough torque by hand to operate a planar grinder. Subsequent development of these grinder types, until perhaps very recently, was done for reasons other than grind quality issues, although this may play a part in the last few years.
ken

To enlarge on my speculation -- and it's the most reliable kind, unfettered by facts or knowledge -- I guessed that manual grinders were primarily conical because planar grinders need substantial rotational speed to spin the ground coffee out centrifugally; and that is beyond the reasonable capability of a hand-cranked grinder.

Much of the product development I've seen in other industries adds improvement after improvement on existing concepts rather than breaking the mold with something really different; and I thought perhaps that may have shaped the development path for grinders -- manual conicals followed by electrical conicals, and then electrical planar grinders.

I have no opinion about whether conicals make better tasting espresso than planar grinders; but it may be terribly difficult to firmly establish that any perceived taste difference is due specifically to whether the burrs are conical rather than planar, and not to some other difference between two grinders. I think it may be devilishly difficult to hold all the other variables constant. In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

Nevertheless, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this project!

Rick

Java Man wrote:To enlarge on my speculation -- and it's the most reliable kind, unfettered by facts or knowledge --

but it may be terribly difficult to firmly establish that any perceived taste difference is due specifically to whether the burrs are conical rather than planar, and not to some other difference between two grinders. I think it may be devilishly difficult to hold all the other variables constant. In order to establish true conical superiority, I think we'd also need a sound theoretical explanation of specifically what makes conicals better, supported by testing to establish that the advantage can be "measured" in the grounds themselves before they're brewed.

Nevertheless, I'm eagerly awaiting the results of this project!

Rick

I view this part of the project much as has been stated before by John and Dave; it is preliminary research aimed at trying to see if there appears to be a difference between different grinders in their output, and if this possible difference appears related to burr type. Along the way, there is a lot of descriptive and illustrative material, including photos, that can be put out there, much better stuff than is out there at the present.

I will myself be contributing with a mini review/comparison of the Cimbali Max to a Junior or Cadet. I'm leaning towards using my Cadet in this work since it has just had its burrs changed and the Junior I retain has 3 year old burrs. The Maxs I have are nearly brand new, so the comparison would be more equivalent given that the Cadet and Junior share the same burrs, the same grinder path, the same motor, and the same doser.

What I intend to do is a lot of back and forth shots which I hope will illustrate if there is any obvious and repeatable apparent difference. If there is, then more formal tasting such as with blind tasting will be necessary to be certain whether or not the apparent difference is real.

ken