CwD wrote:Have you found anything interesting about puck prep effects on flow yet? I know Rao posted some things about methods that increased (downward taps, swiping, changing weight in pf) vs decreased (stirring, shaking, side taps) volatility, and Perger was surprised to find nutating actually decreased volatility.

I tried nutating a couple of shots this morning. Absolutely increased flow resistance and reduced the rate of puck degradation, as John and Matt Perger saw. Appeared to generate more even flow: looking from below my shots start at the edge and move to the center, and after nutating this filling in seems to be much faster, which might reflect more even grind density (I only did side and downward taps to distribute the grinds before nutating). Whether these effects are consistent remains to be seen.

MrEd wrote:I tried nutating a couple of shots this morning. Absolutely increased flow resistance and reduced the rate of puck degradation, as John and Matt Perger saw. Appeared to generate more even flow: looking from below my shots start at the edge and move to the center, and after nutating this filling in seems to be much faster, which might reflect more even grind density (I only did side and downward taps to distribute the grinds before nutating). Whether these effects are consistent remains to be seen.

For what it's worth, in 2015, Matt Perger wrote this:

Matt Perger (on BH) wrote:In regards to nutating with traditional espresso grinders, it's quite harmful to extraction evenness. Traditional grinders struggle to create a narrow particle distribution. It's best to grind as fine as you can to reduce the number of boulders (large grinds) they produce. Nutation requires a coarser grind setting which extends the particle distribution even farther from ideal.

I tried nutating because of a video John posted yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMGbeVGfCuI
John's conclusion:

Big surprise, both Matt and were yesterday finding that nutating (this is a slightly rotated tamping technique) consistently improved the puck

I'm curious to hear how they reconcile this conclusion with Matt's previous apologia.
I nutated much more gently than described in Matt's original article. The net result in terms of coarsening the grind was shifting the Vario settings from 2M to 2O. I have no idea whether this significantly changes the grinds distribution. It certainly changed the pressure profile nicely in a good direction.

MrEd wrote:I tried nutating because of a video John posted yesterday.

I think John's assumption that the puck was improved is questionable. One issue with all of the data the DE1+ produces is that it encourages efforts to cater to improving that data. But if the visible improvement in the data results in degradation in uncharted factors, you could end up with a shot that is worse. So, for example, if (hypothetically) nutating results in a more compact puck, but changes the characteristics of what is extracted in a negative way, I question whether one should really call that an improved puck. And since I've seen nothing to rule that possibility out, I think John is overstating the situation to say that nutating "consistently improved the puck" - or, at a minimum, he hasn't stated enough information to support that conclusion.

Fair point, but while in a standard shot, a coarser grind would be required when nutating, extended and gradual pre-wetting and saturation of the grinds speeds up the pour significantly. This requires a finer grind to achieve desired flow rate. So it's no surprise that (with the immediate feedback only a DE1+ can give you) you would find that a finer grind, a nutating tamp and flow profiling would yield superior results when used together... Further testing and reviews with tasting notes will have to verify, but initial rumors and hearsay suggest that better looking profiles as logged by the DE1+ result in better tasting shots.

Im so drooling over this machine.

- Jake

Jake_G wrote:...initial rumors and hearsay suggest that better looking profiles as logged by the DE1+ result in better tasting shots.

The thing we will have to learn is how to interpret the profiles. It is not always obvious what is better. John can do it incredibly, because he has extensive experience with the machine. The rest of us, not so much at this point.

roastini wrote: ...One issue with all of the data the DE1+ produces is that it encourages efforts to cater to improving that data.

Without a doubt. Making that taste to chart correlation has a learning curve, and it is only once you can intuit how changing the chart will change the end result in the cup, that it makes any sense to play that game.

One of things I have appreciated throughout the process has been that John has completely stayed out of the subjective discussions of the implications of the charts. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to value his input in any case as 1: he's completely biased since it is his blood sweat and tears, and 2: he has no "street cred" as having a palate any of us should rely on for what tastes good.

Perger and Rao on the other hand along with Tom and others in this community, have some serious credibility as to what is and isn't good espresso.

All along the incredibly transparent development of this machine, John has been careful to point out that discussions like this one happening right now are what will define the success or failure of his product. He has been tireless at developing a product that 1: generates information we've never had access to before and 2: gives us the ability manipulate the variables that generate said information. It's up to our generous beta testers to help the rest of us figure out whether or not what John has built is any good.

With that I say "Thank You!" to all of you who were brave enough and patient enough to be early adopters and supporters and to share your findings with the rest of us. We're all tempted to call you lucky, but luck has literally nothing to do with you folks receiving these first few machines. My hat's off to you all!

Alright, I'll be quiet now

Jake_G wrote:Perger and Rao on the other hand along with Tom and others in this community, have some serious credibility as to what is and isn't good espresso.

That's true. But I didn't hear Matt say, "nutating made my DE1+ shots taste better." The video actually looked more to me like he was almost playing a game - seeing what he could do to change the chart in certain ways. Could be a fun game, but absent some indication (from Matt) that the nutated puck resulted in a better tasting shot, I don't really know what conclusion to draw from the video.

roastini wrote:I don't really know what conclusion to draw from the video.

I know I know. Nothing.