Charlie Chan wrote:As to Abe's Brewtus being a different beast, maybe not as different as you might think. I believe Abe had two pids added, one for the brew boiler and one for the steam boiler. And said the mod wasn't necessary. The rotary pump mod is more of a convenience issue then a taste improver. And the preheated water going into the brew boiler is the stock design of the Brewtus.

Another +1. I was very impressed by Abe's modded Brewtus, but it still has the same E61 grouphead and boiler configuration. Rotary pumps are great, but there's no evidence that they produce a better shot. Direct plumb is another huge convenience feature, but should not have much impact on taste. Incoming water temp is different in a reservoir vs. a water line, but the Brewtus boiler configuration should take care of this in the steam boiler. PIDing the brew boiler yields greater temperature precision and resolution, but I doubt it translates to more than a 1F difference in the cup. PIDing the steam boiler, well, that's simply over the top.

Abe, if I've gotten any of this wrong, feel free to jump in and correct me. (Not that you need my permission. )

RapidCoffee wrote:Now if only the Robur was half the size, weight, and cost...

Find a used one, cut it in half (at the base of the motor) and stash the electronics under the counter

Someone's been overindulging...

Luca's point about the importance of a grinder is well made. I want to add another observation to a common misconception in testing machines side by side. When the machines have different architecture, in this case an E61 vs saturated group, internal head space, screen dispersion pattern, preinfusion cycle, temperature profile; the Barista's job is to understand how all these parameters interplay and use them in optimal manner to really get as close as possible to a comparison. That takes a lot of experience, and more often than not it is poorly executed. I am not eluding to any person specifically here, and definitely not to Luca. I will speak about myself and my continuing journey to get an intuitive handle on that interplay. Those differences will require often adjustments in dosage, temperature and grind setting to do a real comparison.

Because of the complexity of this task, I discount minor differences if they can be reversed by the barista. A common test I use is as follows: I pull a shot on my home machine, write down its taste profile, pull one on the GS3, notice a different profile. Then change extraction parameters and practically reverse the result. The home machine produced a GS3 shot and the GS3 produces a profile very similar to my home machine.

All this is a cautionary note on our ability to attribute minor differences to the machine itself. Now with that note, I return you back to where we all started from

RapidCoffee wrote:Apologies for the OT post but... +1.

I'll second that for this segment ...

Jim has vastly greater experience and a much more sophisticated palate than I do, so you should value his opinion accordingly. And the "Can It Beat The Robur" thread is certainly a fun read, with some David vs. Goliath aspects (we all love to root for the underdog). But I have to question some of Jim's findings. In the TGP, I thought the Robur produced consistently better shots than the small Macap MXK conical and the Mazzer SJ. Other inconsistencies: I've owned a Nemox Lux in the past, and it's just not in the same league with any of the Titan grinders. And my one experience with the Versalab M3 leads me to believe it was seriously undervalued in the Beat The Robur tests.

I think that we need to remember Jim's disclaimers in that thread:

Jim wrote:# These tests do not reflect user friendliness. Every shot from every grinder was sifted, declumped, weighed, etc, etc, no matter how much trouble that entailed. In the real world, the most consistent, least fuss shots come from grinders producing fluffy, clump free grinds. As a rule, larger burrs do this better than small ones, conicals better than flat, doser grinders better than doserless grinders, and lower rotation ones better than higher rotation ones.

...

# Bigger is generally more consistent, and all around better. I have little doubt, after two months with this range of grinders, that if I tested them for several years with lots of coffees and machines, the bigger grinders would end up averaging better than the small ones. However, the tests show that there is enough variability to create horses for courses. For a new combination of coffee, dose, machine, etc, a smart bookie wouldn't be making the big boys heavy favorites or giving out very long odds on the smaller grinders.

Abe Carmeli wrote:I want to add another observation to a common misconception in testing machines side by side. When the machines have different architecture, in this case an E61 vs saturated group, internal head space, screen dispersion pattern, preinfusion cycle, temperature profile; the Barista's job is to understand how all these parameters interplay and use them in optimal manner to really get as close as possible to a comparison. That takes a lot of experience, and more often than not it is poorly executed. I am not eluding to any person specifically here, and definitely not to Luca. I will speak about myself and my continuing journey to get an intuitive handle on that interplay. Those differences will require often adjustments in dosage, temperature and grind setting to do a real comparison.

Because of the complexity of this task, I discount minor differences if they can be reversed by the barista. A common test I use is as follows: I pull a shot on my home machine, write down its taste profile, pull one on the GS3, notice a different profile. Then change extraction parameters and practically reverse the result. The home machine produced a GS3 shot and the GS3 produces a profile very similar to my home machine.

Good point, Abe. No offence taken whatsoever, but your post is a good reminder that it's always a good idea to include the information upon which opinions are based ...

I think that it would probably take kilos and kilos of coffee to really get a decent picture of how the machines work, which is why I noted that I only had a brief experience with the GS/3 and the Brewtus. As far as the GS/3 goes, I took a kilo of the blend that I use at work and burnt through the whole thing over an hour or two, changing temps and grind settings to hunt down the best shot that I could get out of it. Shots ranged from very ordinary to exceptional, so there's certainly an element of getting used to the machine - as there is with any machine. By the end of the session, the GS/3 started to feel very much like the FB80 at work, which is why I am happy to say that I think it's a great little machine.

The story with the Brewtus was much the same; about an hour playing with it without any great shots coming out. However, now that I have had my e61 hx at home for ages, I'd definitely be interested to revisit the Brewtus.

I worked on a Cyncra (part time) for about a year and a half.

As for understanding what is going on, I only recently got my hands on a Scace device at home and it certainly helped to bump up my consistency a notch at home. The Scace confirmed that the gadgetry at work is pretty much point-and-shoot.

I think that it is definitely irritating that in-depth machine comparisons are so seldom conducted. Because of this, I'm happy to post up brief impressions as long as people know that they are just that. Trying to quantify anything is also exceptionally irritating, particularly seeing as different people will attach different importance to the same changes. I think that the clarity of flavour vs gooey chocolatey shots take on saturated vs e61 groups is generally correct, but I should acknowledge that the magnitude does seem to vary between setups. I selected my HX on the basis that it was closer to the saturated group flavour profile than other e61s that I had tried ... and I like the saturated group flavour profile. I understand that all of this must be frustrating for anyone who is trying to decide what to buy.

Cheers,

Luca

RapidCoffee wrote:PIDing the brew boiler yields greater temperature precision and resolution, but I doubt it translates to more than a 1F difference in the cup. PIDing the steam boiler, well, that's simply over the top.

Abe, if I've gotten any of this wrong, feel free to jump in and correct me. (Not that you need my permission. )

John, leave my PID'd steam boiler alone. It was Sean's Idea by the way, and he did a great job on it. I on the other hand, wanted to put the brew boiler on wheels to see if it can get to brew temperature a little faster, but Sean, the kill joy, put his foot down. So sadly, we will never be able to test that enhancement. But seriously, the rationale of course was the H/X which goes through the steam boiler to preheat the water entering the brew boiler. Synesso, by the way has done the same thing.

But more to your point, The PID allows better consistency both in brew temperature and in temperature profile, and that is besides adding the ability to have 0.5f resolution. The resolution adds versatility. Because of it, I could go head to head with both the Synesso and GS3. they all have very similar, almost identical temperature profiles. If I take the Brewtus without the PID, the advantage of the GS3 will be in temp resolution and consistency. But I doubt that there would be much difference in shot quality when the Brewtus hits the temperature mark. But that is a hypothesis, I did not test it, hence my reluctance to full heartedly support it. Now, where was I ? Ah, how important is ultra precise temperature, and what is the optimal temperature profile are still question that will be fulling virtual wars for the next 50 years. If we could only divert that energy to world peace.

Ah, world peace or consistent g-d shots... decisions decisions...

JimWright wrote:... but an ex-Barista from what was formerly Espresso Royale, now Lulu Carpenter's cafe in Santa Cruz (I was that obnoxious guy who actually picked up the girls behind the counter...)

So that was YOU!

Presented in the FWIW Dept., Lulu's was Lulu Carpenter's BEFORE is was Espresso Royale . . . but the original Lulu Carpenter's was a bar -- great cocktails! Nice to see that it's Lulu's again -- now if I only knew where that one cocktail waitress went to . . . .

Cheers,
Jason

Abe Carmeli wrote:John, leave my PID'd steam boiler alone. It was Sean's Idea by the way, and he did a great job on it. But seriously, the rationale of course was the H/X which goes through the steam boiler to preheat the water entering the brew boiler. Synesso, by the way has done the same thing.

As I've mentioned before, I was extremely impressed by your modded Brewtus. I want one too! But of all the significant mods (PIDs on both boilers, direct plumb, rotary pump), I'd part with the PID on the steam boiler first.

I'm not sure why Expobar (or even WLL) doesn't release a similar commercial version of the Brewtus for a few hundred dollars more. I suspect it would be an instant success. The lack of options in the double boiler arena has left a gaping hole in the espresso prosumer market, at least around the $2K price point. Finally VBM is stepping up to the plate. I'd love to see QuickMill and other manufacturers jump in as well.

Gaping hole indeed. There are at least some of us (e.g., me) who are very eagerly waiting for the VBM (and for more info on the DC Super Mini while we're at it) to decide whether to go all the way with a GS3 or Cyncra or whether we can satisfy that need for precision and adjustability at a lower price point.