SteveRhinehart wrote:video

Thank you very much - I was looking for that one too for quite some time!

Coming from a Vario 54mm ceramic burrs, and Eureka Specialita Steel 55mm burrs, going to a DF64 with 64mm burrs and Monolith Flat with 75mm Shuriken LM burrs.
As you go to a larger flat burr grinder I find there's more clarity but also less body and bitterness for espresso anyway, sometimes it feels 'weak' to me but great if you enjoy drinking a straight shot without any bitterness.
I've also tried the different 64mm SSP burrs (Espresso high uniformity and Multipurpose unimodal (v2)), still experimenting with them but I think compared to the stock DF64 burrs, they produce less fines, it basically starts getting a little more clarity and less bitterness and body, they kinda go right in order you'd expect. Stock DF64 burrs, espresso burrs, Unimodal burrs, then Monolith flat LM burrs, in order from most to least body, and least clarity to most clarity. But compared to Specialita and Vario even with the stock burrs the DF 64mm burrs are a pretty big jump and offer good clarity. Sometimes i do miss the body (and maybe even some of the bitterness) those produce. So I might actually prefer the stock burrs to the SSP Burrs usually.
The unique geometry of the Shuriken LM burrs in the Monolith does seem to bring out the sweetness, limiting acidity and bitterness bringing out best in many coffees even if the coffee isn't great, or you grind too fine or too coarsely, it makes it easy to get good results. They're very forgiving. Once dialed in, the 64mm SSP burrs are very close though!

Update: Found this post from a little while back and since then I've been doing more comparisons. I found The Shuriken LM Burrs in the Monolith Titan Flat I don't believe had less clarity and less body than the Unimodal Multipurpose (MP) SSP burrs (Maybe I thought that earlier before seasoning or just assumed that should be the case because the 64mm SSP Unimodal burrs were smaller than the 75mm Shuriken LMs.
Also I don't think the size of the burrs ALWAYS correlates with the amount of flavour, amount of fines or amount of body, a lot will depend on the BURR geometry / design, as well as the RPM and grinder design. I think a factor may be because I was originally comparing the SSP MP Unimodal burrs in a DF64 vs the Shuriken 75mm, but later compared more with the same burr (MP) type in a Lagom P64 and generally used it at around 1100rpm for espresso vs DF64s 1400RPM so that may have also been a factor. I never compared those burrs in the P64 and DF64 at the same time unfortunately to see how much of a difference the grinder (or RPM makes a difference) but DF64 declumper screen holding back coffee which can affect grind quality may have been a factor possibly. But anyway, to further my (probably confusing) point, I've compared the Atom 75 (75mm Eureka burrs) and I believe the DF64 even with the stock italmill (64mm) burrs is definitely higher flavour clarity and less body even though the burr size and burr geometry look similar, Eureka burrs generally have more of a flavour blending quality to it which works well for traditional espresso but usually results in more fines for Filter coffee and not as great results, for picking out individual flavour notes in a light roast it doesn't do as well, but typically that works to its advantage for medium roasts, or even making light roasts kinda more acceptable tasting to more people. Blending together flavours and mellowing things out a bit more, that's also a property I noticed in SOME conical burrs. I do find you can get some conical burrs that have good flavour clarity while still, being more forgiving of imperfect dialing in or issues with puck prep etc

I'd love someone to challenge me and set up a blind taste-test and try to mess me up with some good and maybe cheap grinders.

Um, you can do it very easily by yourself. Just grind into identical cups marked on their bottoms, shuffle, pour, taste, and pick. Of course, that is all about you, and not at all about the grinders.

If you want to make it about the grinders; you keep tasting and testing until: 1) you can tell them apart easily when tasting blind; not as some great triumph of tasting acumen, but as an everyday skill you've acquired. 2) You can describe exactly how they taste different, and where their respective strengths lie. That is the kind of knowledge that is valuable to prospective buyers.

Sadly, if you judge what is on YouTube about high end grinders by this commonsense standard, most of it is posing and pretense.

espressotime wrote:I think many a dream would be shattered if real blindtests would be conducted.

There are blind tests performed on many consumer goods but many sellers try hard to keep the results from reaching the ears of consumers. The reason is obvious.

i dont agree on blind test.
its like riding a taxi from point A to B.
didnt matter what car these taxi used, unless you are have familiarity and are given proper parameter on what to compare, there not much to comment other than everything is the same. you still ride from A to B.

now if you drink same coffee made by the same barista with same beans, same brew method, same grinder everyday, and one day the barista used a different grinder burr, you'd notice the differrence because it is not exactly the same. but if you cant describe what is different, you probably wont care to consider the coffee in general is different at all. there's your not so blind taste. blind is worse. ymmv, but believe what you will.

ymmv.

There are at least three questions in a good test of this sort:

1) Is there a significant difference between the options?

If you can't match the pair and the odd-cup-out reliably, there is no significant difference for that observer

2) If so, is there a consistent preference between the options?

You may be able to reliably match A-A / B and A / B-B, but is there reliably a preference between the two?

3) If so, is the preference understood and explainable by the observer?

The result is more useful when an outsider understands both the observer's preferences and biases, as well as how the observer themselves view their criteria.

As an example, knowing that I can identify the cups from my DF64 and that I really dislike it on a workflow basis and on a design basis, you should discount me saying that I prefer anything to my DF64.

iyayy wrote:i dont agree on blind test.
its like riding a taxi from point A to B.
didnt matter what car these taxi used, unless you are have familiarity and are given proper parameter on what to compare, there not much to comment other than everything is the same. you still ride from A to B.

now if you drink same coffee made by the same barista with same beans, same brew method, same grinder everyday, and one day the barista used a different grinder burr, you'd notice the differrence because it is not exactly the same. but if you cant describe what is different, you probably wont care to consider the coffee in general is different at all. there's your not so blind taste. blind is worse. ymmv, but believe what you will.

ymmv.

You are free to agree or disagree on anything. The main reason for blind testing is to focus only on the parameter compared without being tainted by personal bias (we all have it and cannot be controlled by will), power of suggestions or other external influences. It is to objectify the test process. Medical industry has been using it for very long time. Ever heard of placebo pills?

medical test will always be objective.
placebo pills includes descriptive suggestion to people taking it.
then there are also a set of control groups, and a large sample of people, and a set of questionaire / observations.

if we were to follow same mehods, we will a large number of people to be involved. we're talking hundreds here.

also the people involved will be allowed any number of tasting, and given a set of questionnaire that ask specific question, not simply asking general or open ended question like "is there any difference". the people must also be aware of the coffee origin being used.

then you will have something like these question which targets specific parameters of the coffee taste. there will never be question such as which you prefer or which are more enjoyable, because those are bias.

1. which is more sweet?
2. which is more acidic?
3. which has more berry notes?
4. which has more chocolaty taste?
5. which has more aroma?
6. which is more syrupy?
7. which has more texture?
etc..
and the scoring from these will be evaluated to actually tell whether the burrs have any difference or not.

the test then becomes objective. the only blind thing is the grinder isnt revealed. but the test item itself is highly descriptive. participants are aware of what is to be tested and what to look for based on the questionnaire. anything less would mean intentional disservice to the test itself for finding the grinder's difference.

just like people cant react to sudden events, asking to do blind test without control is similar to doing test with full intention of getting random result. the bias of the test then have the goal of failing the test rather than finding difference.

its the same for medical field. participants arent tested only for heart rate or blood pressure alone. even if they are not questioned, there is a lot of health parameters being captured.

i mean what happens if covid vaccine was actually tested blind? do you like taking vaccine A or B? do you feel better after taking vaccine A or B? can you explain difference of what you feel after taking vaccine A vs B?

end of the day, i'll agree that some may find blind test valid for their own reason, based on their belief or experience. again ymmv, but i'll finish my debate here. cheers.