Since anecdotal evidence is being asked for, I can finally chime in here. As has been said, taste is difficult to describe and very subject to bias. One thing I have noticed for sure is that my extractions are consistently much more even. I am using a Slayer with the typical naked portafilter. With the SSP burrs, nearly every one of my extractions looks like it could be photographed for the cover of a book. This was not the case with the Mythos burrs, I often had some channeling issues that did not seem to markedly affect taste, but were noticeable.

As for taste, I seem to notice more flavor separation. The highs and lows can be more pronounced without being overbearing. In overall quality and repeatability, I am not sure that my peak shots have gotten better, but I would say my average shots have moved closer to my peak shots by a marked degree.

Overall I would say that the burrs have had more of an impact than I expected. I sort of thought I was being stupid, buying something just to buy something as I am apt to do. I didn't imagine they would have much of a discernible impact, at least not within my moderate ability to perceive. However, from the first shot, it was clear that the upgrade was very much worthwhile

Pranav, I completely agree that what I'm doing shouldn't be characterized as "science". That was a term someone else used and I shouldn't have adopted it.

That said, I would put what I'm doing beyond anecdotal evidence or pure opinion because it does involve measurements with precision devices -- Acaia scale, VST refractometer, etc., and I try to be strict with my protocol, though it's certainly at the amateur level.

Further, the changes in retention, grind time and grind setting I have observed are hardly anecdotal. Those measurements are simple, reliable and quite solid, and they're completely consistent with the changes I and dozens of other owners of Monolith Flat grinders have observed during break-in. The new information is that the SSP burrs appear to require quite a bit less initial break-in than the older burr models Kafatek has used (roughly 2.5 lbs versus 10 lbs.) In fact, the manufacturer says that the SSP burrs require very little break-in, which my tests confirm. My measurements might not be precise down to the nanogram, nanosecond or nanometer, but I believe they're accurate enough to serve as guidelines for other people who install the SSP burrs in their Monolith Flat grinder.

And the conclusion I added at the beginning of the first post, that the first 2.5 lbs of break-in causes the greatest change, but that there are still small changes after further break-in, isn't anecdotal either. I'll bet money that other Flat owners upgrading to SSP burrs have a similar enough experience to make any differences inconsequential.

Now, like you I'm less certain about the increase in extraction yield and the consequent improvement in taste I reported. That's why I said that I would withhold final judgement on those things until I've lived with the grinder for a long while. I agree that anything I might conclude on those scores would likely be anecdotal.

SteveH wrote:One thing I have noticed for sure is that my extractions are consistently much more even.

I think that's the case with my extractions as well. I say "I think" because though all of the extractions with the SSP burrs have been quite pretty (when I get the grind right), my extractions became pretty nice with the Mythos burrs after I switched to using a BT wedge and no tamper. I need to try some experiments with less or no WDT, and maybe go back to the tamper, to see if I can confirm a difference.

SteveH wrote:As for taste, I seem to notice more flavor separation. The highs and lows can be more pronounced without being overbearing.

Denis said I would notice more flavor separation, but it's too early for me to confirm that. As I documented, I have noticed the highs and lows being more pronounced.

SteveH wrote:Overall I would say that the burrs have had more of an impact than I expected....it was clear that the upgrade was very much worthwhile

I agree with this anecdotal observation.

NB: I'm going to try my first pourover grinds tomorrow to sample six roasts I did last week. As I noted earlier, it's a lot harder to be consistent with pourover, especially when moving between different roasts and different SOs. I'm sure my observations will be completely anecdotal.

Peppersass wrote: That said, I would put what I'm doing beyond anecdotal evidence or pure opinion because it does involve measurements with precision devices -- Acaia scale, VST refractometer, etc., and I try to be strict with my protocol, though it's certainly at the amateur level.

Dick, you baited me into a discussion, my reply was more to defend you against that someone other. However, that's my other point, the use of Acacia scale, VST refrectometer (BTW, they are not even precision devices in my world) etc etc does not make anecdotal observation any better, You have n=1 for burrs, your comparisons of burr unequal, so many variables are out of place, lack of statistics, controls for buyers bias, controls for coffee type, controls for what you ate before tasting coffee, running standards and calibrating refrectometer before each measurement etc, etc. You could have used the best mass spectrometer in the world to profile every molecule in the coffee and the observation would still be anecdotal with everything else being same. For me scientific means providing me with probability of occurrence (statistics) and eliminating all other reasons that could lead to the observation erroneously (at least one that are known). I don't want to get into complicated debate about of how statistical interpretations can be misused. However, statistics never lie, even if statisticians can......

According to highly reliable source (straight face), Wikipedia,
In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[6] aka lacking hypothesis testing with statistics

As I said, anecdotal evidence is not always a bad thing. It can sometimes lead to hypothesis generation and scientific testing of hypothesis. However, in absence of later, its just an anecdotal evidence.

An interesting read:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... c-results/

+1

SteveH wrote:The rigor with which Peppersass has approached this is super impressive. This is simply an enthusiast forum and he's gone above and beyond to try to pull actual data to share. I know I for one am not nearly as patient or precise. To complain that it's not scientific enough is a bit ridiculous given the forum and intention. This isn't a peer reviewed study, it's a HOME-BARISTA coffee forum. I'm certainly thankful for anyone who takes the time to measure and post data. The best I'm prepared to do is drink coffee and say, "I'm pretty sure it's better like this."

If you would have not got emotions involved and tried to understand objectively, you would have perhaps understood my point. I am sorry my friend, you missed it completely. I am not here to argue, either you get it or you don't. You would have also found that I am appreciative of Dick for writing this account and read it with pleasure. The very reason I am on this thread. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

OK, let's get back to business. Coffee, that is.

Yesterday, I tried six of my home roasts as espresso ground with the SSP burrs, four Tanzania Tarime Town AA and two Guatemala Xinabajul Santa Barbara. Both from Sweet Maria's. The roasts were the first decent espresso roasts I've managed to produce after dozens of roasts during the learning curve. While the SSP burrs performed as expected, I can't say they're any better or any different from the Mythos burrs because I didn't pull any of these roasts with the Mythos burrs. Extraction yields varied with the roast level, so no useful information there.

I also tried two of the Tanzania Tarime Town AA roasts as pourover, and they were quite good (finally, I'm able to produce roasts that work for both pourover and espresso!) Extraction yields were in the 20.5%-21.5% range for both roasts, one of which was medium and the other was more toward the light end of the spectrum, but not ultra-light.

Again, there's no way to compare these results to the Mythos burrs. Even if I could, I'm not convinced that my pourover protocol is consistent enough for comparisons. That said, I'm certainly pleased with how the burrs performed for pourover grinds. Certainly comparable to the Mythos burrs, possibly better. About all I can say with certainty is that the pourover tests did not show any decrease in quality from the Mythos burrs.

Hopefully I'll gain some insight when i do some pourover with commercial beans with which I'm familiar.

I find that with SSP burrs you need a longer brew ratio i.e. 1:17.5-18 and higher extraction to get the best out of them. This might be something to try.