Is body of espresso on the DE1 thinner? - Page 7

#61: Post by **cunim** » June 11th, 2019, 9:25 am

JayBeck wrote:
1) More headspace requires a finer grind. Finer grinds reduce mouthfeel.

Whoa there JayBeck. Now that is interesting - the bit about finer grinds reducing mouthfeel. I did not know that. Is this an informal observation or is it something everyone (except me) knows?

That would explain a lot. When I ran the E61 with boiler pressure preinfusion (usually about 30 sec), I found I had to grind considerably finer. I also noted a thinner mouth feel but I kept doing it because it made modern coffees drinkable (don't like sour). With the DE1, I am always using some sort of fancy preinfusion. Same reason. I will have to try the classic E61 profile and see if that changes the mouth feel from "a bit thin" to normal.

I seem to recall people saying that other long preinfusion/finer grind machines (like the Slayer) also tend to decrease mouth feel. I've also seen the opposite so I don't know what to believe about that.

CwD, a machine reading (viscosity) which defines subjective experience (mouth feel) is termed an operational definition. The temperature indication on your thermostat (the physical reading) is an operational definition of warmth (what you feel). Temperature works as an operational definition because we understand the relationship between temperature and warmth. We have no such understanding of the relationship between viscosity and mouth feel - and the studies which would give us that understanding would be very tedious. That is why the food industry uses tasting panels. This is all experimental design 101, and doesn't really matter unless you like that sort of thing. My opinion is that the easiest approach would be to just do the blind testing. If the effect is non-trivial, it doesn't take a lot of samples to achieve a valid outcome.

#62: Post by **crunchybean** » June 11th, 2019, 9:39 am

samuellaw178 wrote:Very interesting discussion!

So when we talk about 'body' (aka viscosity??), it could come from any of these. Before reading this thread, I actually thought that mouthfeel/body/viscosity are more or less describing the same thing but apparently not so.

By no means do I think I am the final authority, but how I think about differentiating the three are by questions.

Body:
How full in the mouth is it? Does it move slowly or does it expand quickly filling up the palate with flavor? Can you sense it in your retro-nasal area without having to sniff the cup? After you have swallowed how long does the flavor stay in your mouth? The word I describe a good body is voluminous and lingering.

Mouthfeel:
After you have swallowed the beverage, how does it stay on the palate? Is it like a spoonful of oil or milk? Sryrup? Drying? (When it comes to tea: is it warming or cooling?) How does it feel in the throats when swallowed? Does it want to me drunk or do you resist a little or have to force it down? The word I like for mouthfeel is luscious or silky.

Viscosity:
After a sip or gulp, rub your tongue against the roof of your mouth. How does the liquid feel? How does your tongue feel? Is the liquid thin or thick, or your tongue wet or dry. A word I like is jammy or creamy.

#63: Post by **HRC-E.B.** » June 11th, 2019, 9:59 am

another_jim wrote:It's an excellent question. I often imagine a lovely espresso bar, where you can get different coffees and different styles of shot; but I've never found one in the real world.

I've been following discussions about profiling machines, and experimenting with mine. Based on this, I have a suspicion that a lot of the quasi-scientific discussion about what machine factors are critical to what aspects of taste are really a search for recipes or algorithms. Based on this, I'm working on doing a video where I'll give the basic recipes and fine tuning methods for Italian, Seattle style, and third wave espresso.

Why these three styles? If you imagine a multidimensional state space of coffee roast and blend, grind fineness and dose, basket head space, water debit, shot temperature, brew ratios, and flow rates, these three styles would cluster in very different zones of the state space. When you fine tune the shots, you would stay within each style's zone; but if you have the wrong coffee, or the wrong gear, no fine tuning will work, and you need to switch genres to one that works for that coffee and gear.

I'm not saying these three are the only possible styles of shot; but they are very distinct, have long independent histories, and enthusiastic proponents. So I think if people are familiar with the concept of distinct shot styles; they'll have am easier time working out on how to make shots they enjoy.

Well, I'll anxiously be waiting for this. I've enough experience with my gear and different coffees, but not enough markers or bases to compare with. This would be so useful!

I'll even buy the coffees you suggest to make sure I can replicate as best as possible.

When do you figure this will be available?

#64: Post by **CwD** » June 11th, 2019, 10:38 am

JayBeck wrote:There have been a few E61 and LaSpaz users who have noticed differences. Aldo has an Alex Duetto (rotary pump with 12ml/s max flow) and John has a LaSpaz (rotary with 12ml/s max flow). Furthermore, I have other friends who have high flow machines who have done experiments just like what Jim Schulman has done by slamming the puck with high flow (12ml/s) and coarser ground for super thick shots (one a BDB fitted with a rotary pump and the other a Rancilio S20). Both of these users have done the same test using 8ml/s max flow and noted a reduced mouthfeel.

This is great! It was hard to consider the theory too seriously between two machines without gear pump derision from the mouthfeel crowd, but being able to accomplish the test on one machine is a big deal for proving the effect. Thanks!

NelisB wrote:Just two from the food department:

Butter vs. margarine
Sugar vs. aspartame

Those are alternatives, not mimics. They do not attempt to copy the actual properties of the item.

#65: Post by **another_jim** » June 11th, 2019, 10:40 am

appfrent wrote: ... Your little filter paper experiment tells the opposite of what you think ...

I'm glad to hear it, since I've always been a fines skeptic (i.e. I don't regard them as major contributors, whether villainous or virtuous).

One question about paper filtration. It is used to clarify and remove cloudiness from brews of all kinds, coffee, wine, beer, consummes, etc. If the sediment passes through, how do they clarify?

#66: Post by **CwD** » June 11th, 2019, 10:45 am

another_jim wrote:I'm glad to hear it, since I've always been a fines skeptic (i.e. I don't regard them as major contributors, whether villainous or virtuous).

One question about paper filtration. It is used to clarify and remove cloudiness from brews of all kinds, coffee, wine, beer, consummes, etc. If the sediment passes through, how do they clarify?

The sediment getting through paper filters is the same sediment that can work through the puck, mostly very very microscopically fine. If you're using Whatman 597 filters, you won't get any sediment larger than 7um. If Grade 5 filters, 2.5um. Clarification isn't all or nothing. And even finely paper filtered espresso has nothing on centrifuged espresso if clarity is your goal, looks like thick, but still transparent, filter coffee after a spin around the fuge.

NelisB wrote:Assume an appropriate test shows that mouthfeel is coming from viscosity. How is the DE going to mimic viscosity?

Viscosity is a property of a drink. You can't mimic viscosity in the same way you can't mimic tds. You mimic the things a machine does that produce higher viscosity to reach that goal.

#67: Post by **another_jim** » June 11th, 2019, 10:47 am

luca wrote:(The below is a response to my question of the extent to which TDS and body coincide.)

... The lightest was the highest in TDS by a smallish margin - 0.7% or so. The middle roast probably had the most body and had less TDS.

George Howell often says that medium roast caramels are a "cheap" way to get body; obviously given his philosophy, the only legit body is due to the green coffee itself, its terroir, varietal, and prep, and not anything added by roasting or brewing technique. Of course, for him, this whole discussion is bell, book and candle worthy.

#68: Post by **discsinthesky** » June 11th, 2019, 10:51 am

another_jim wrote:It's an excellent question. I often imagine a lovely espresso bar, where you can get different coffees and different styles of shot; but I've never found one in the real world.

I've been following discussions about profiling machines, and experimenting with mine. Based on this, I have a suspicion that a lot of the quasi-scientific discussion about what machine factors are critical to what aspects of taste are really a search for recipes or algorithms. Based on this, I'm working on doing a video where I'll give the basic recipes and fine tuning methods for Italian, Seattle style, and third wave espresso.

For the newbies following at home, can you elaborate on this portion a bit? I'm pretty new to the espresso realm and trying to learn.

#69: Post by **NelisB** » June 11th, 2019, 10:52 am

CwD wrote:Viscosity is a property of a drink. You can't mimic viscosity in the same way you can't mimic tds. You mimic the things a machine does that produce higher viscosity to reach that goal.

You missed my irony.... How is the DE going to produce more viscosity?

#70: Post by **another_jim** » June 11th, 2019, 10:58 am

( About a video I am making on different styles of espresso)

HRC-E.B. wrote: ... This would be so useful! ...
When do you figure this will be available?

Thanks for the interest. It's going to take a little more some planning than I thought, maybe 6 weeks. There has to be some graphics and text to highlight the different steps, so it's turning into a live demo + white board lecture combination. I'll also have to put together an accompanying PDF as a reference.