Grinder studies by Socratic Coffee - Page 3

Grinders are one of the keys to exceptional espresso. Discuss them here.
samuellaw178
Team HB

#21: Post by samuellaw178 »

keno wrote:Based on these "technical specifications" the Mazzer Mini is better than the HG-1? Nonsense. That just goes to show that these distributions are not directly related to taste, at least in any as yet discernible way.
Not really, but it did show that particular HG-1 has a very odd grind profile. It could be due to break-in or alignment issue, but certainly it's going to affect the taste. We do not know how representative is that particular unit of all the HG-one out there. Also, how does one quantify a grinder is 'better' without involving preference?

User avatar
bostonbuzz

#22: Post by bostonbuzz »

Can anyone tell me what we are to do with their chart and this Mahlkonig chart that Yakster kindly converted from a logarithmic scale into something intelligible with resepct to the Robur and EK43??? (from this thread Death of the big conicals? Big flats are coming...

Should we take the word of manufacturers less seriously? What do we think about this vs laser diffraction???

Image



Image
LMWDP #353

User avatar
weebit_nutty

#23: Post by weebit_nutty »

Unless one can correlate how the various attributes of a particular profile directly affects extraction (and ultimately, indirectly flavor), much of these findings are only interesting at best but not very useful.

The kicker is the correlations themselves need to be scrutinized in the scientific process. .
You're not always right, but when you're right, you're right, right?

Trimethylpurine

#24: Post by Trimethylpurine »

Bluecold wrote:Until they can show that seiving accurately defines the grind profile of the grinder (they haven't), they're just producing graphs based on a test protocol.
Not really, they made a graph comparing the grinding results from different grinders using a test protocol.

Not the same thing, really.

T
LMWDP #520 Trimethylpurine

User avatar
Bluecold
Supporter ♡

#25: Post by Bluecold »

I'm sorry what? You can't literally state the opposite thing and then not give any substantiation. That's not how discussion works. And last time I checked, this was a discussion forum.

They made graphs, using the grounds from different grinders. As for now, they haven't shown their method to be valid, so the graphs are just colorful lines, which have as much bearing on the weather tomorrow in Belfast as they have on coffee grinders. Just because you can do the same thing over and over, doesn't mean the thing you're doing is actually useful.

To make myself perfectly clear, I applaud the efforts of Socratic coffee on their website and their previous efforts seem well-researched. However, the grind distributions they've posted on instagram are not interpretable without any validation of the method, and people here are getting way ahead of themselves by coming up with wild extraction theories.
LMWDP #232
"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death I Shall Fear No Evil For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing."

Shife

#26: Post by Shife »

Is it just me, or does it seem like coffee forum dwellers have such an emotional attachment to their personal equipment and experiences that they react to any information that may objectively challenge subjective views as if you insulted their spouse?

We should be encouraging more tests like this. We certainly should not be making knee-jerk assumptions about the applicability of the data, but I'm tired of armchair internet baristas performing "tests" where they pour a shot with zero scientific methods and controls and then declare a piece of equipment to be "worthy" of the home barista community.

I want data and facts to compare and contrast with my own subjective experiences. There is more than enough baseless speculative subjectivity being presented as authoritative fact on these subjects already.

User avatar
Bluecold
Supporter ♡

#27: Post by Bluecold »

Shife wrote:Is it just me, or does it seem like coffee forum dwellers have such an emotional attachment to their personal equipment and experiences that they react to any information that may objectively challenge subjective views as if you insulted their spouse?
Nope, this is just you trying to discredit anyone questioning what you've decided to accept.
We should be encouraging more tests like this. We certainly should not be making knee-jerk assumptions about the applicability of the data, but I'm tired of armchair internet baristas performing "tests" where they pour a shot with zero scientific methods and controls and then declare a piece of equipment to be "worthy" of the home barista community.
Applicability of data isn't 'knee-jerk'. Validity of the method is paramount for good science. If you don't grasp that concept, you should just sit back, sip your coffee instead of generating more noise.
I want data and facts to compare and contrast with my own subjective experiences. There is more than enough baseless speculative subjectivity being presented as authoritative fact on these subjects already.
Yes, and unless the sieving method is validated for grinder analysis in whatever way, these instagram posts aren't anything more than what you're denouncing, but put into a pretty graph.
LMWDP #232
"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death I Shall Fear No Evil For I am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing."

Marcelnl
Supporter ♡

#28: Post by Marcelnl »

Interesting data, which imo is a good starting point but not that informative without a correlation to taste or knowing what grind size shape and distribution leads to optimal taste....
That people get excited about this sort of data is nice and there sure is plenty to discuss but I don't think it's exciting enough to get all personal about...
LMWDP #483

Patagent

#29: Post by Patagent »

IMO, correlation to either TDS or flow rate or both would give a much more compelling story. Not sure why people keep insisting on correlation to taste as that is highly subjective (some prefer sour, some prefer bitter, etc.). Also, having more of each grinders (n > 1) would be nice.

Patagent

#30: Post by Patagent »

Bluecold wrote:However, the grind distributions they've posted on instagram are not interpretable without any validation of the method, and people here are getting way ahead of themselves by coming up with wild extraction theories.
Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you saying sieves are not adequate tools for measuring particle size distributions? Why would they need to validate sieve-based methodology when it's been around awhile and routinely used to study particle size distribution?