day wrote:Yea its a bit unfortunate we didnt get some holy test results prior to disassembly, as now if it turns out negative or losing to others like the lido 2 we will have to wonder if the disassembly played a role.

Meh, there would always be something else to wonder about regardless. Are both equally broken in? Are the grind settings precisely comparable? Recent solar flare activity? Ok, the last one is kind of a joke.

My view is that nobody's word will be the last; we need a bunch of opinions to weigh together.

Haha that would
Be interesting, perhaps a sudden solar event might cause a change in static properties and this grind distribution in the basket:)

I do agree, but misalignment would be disproportionately impactful

jbviau wrote:Meh, there would always be something else to wonder about regardless. Are both equally broken in? Are the grind settings precisely comparable? Recent solar flare activity? Ok, the last one is kind of a joke.

Haha! Spot on there Josh. That sounds a lot like someone's speaking from experience.

jbviau wrote:My view is that nobody's word will be the last; we need a bunch of opinions to weigh together.

Agreed. People from different background/experience will have different opinion to bring to the table.

day wrote:I do agree, but misalignment would be disproportionately impactful

About the concern about misalignment, I dunno. It may be biased, but it seems that post-disassembly might have a tiny bit better alignment using my own judgment criteria.

I'm using the burrs binding as a point of reference(on Rosco mini that's very accurate & repeatable from my experience), then loosen it until the burrs do not rub, and note that point. That's about 2/16 turn now, and was somewhere 2.5/16 before.

But as I said, the slight play in the inner burrs may cloud the judgment, so for checking alignment I take the best result approach(the lowest number among multiple test). If the pre-disassembly zero point(blue mark) is reliable (where the burrs rub supposedly), that was about 2.5/16 turn from the burrs binding.

In any case, I reckon 2/16 rubbing from binding point is a pretty good alignment, unless there is any other more accurate alignment checking procedure.

But I think the more important point to take home is, alignment on Lido 3(at least) is made to be easily achievable within reason. I recall it was a torture and time consuming to align Lido 1 & Pharos (more than 30 min and still going no where but frustration). On Lido 3 that's easily less than 30 minutes, including the time to watch OE's video for Lido 2 alignment.


=======

Warning - the following is towards the hyper-end of anal-yzing thing:

On Rosco Mini, each full revolution of adjustment ring is 1mm thread distance. It has 20 marks. Each mark is 1mm/20= 0.05mm burrs distance.
On Lido 3, each full revolution of adjustment ring is 2mm thread distance. It has 16 marks. Each mark is 2mm/16 = 0.125mm burrs distance.

The above is why I said Lido 3's adjustment is coarser for espresso.

To put things into perspective
For my Rosco Mini, the burrs rubs at 9 mark from burrs binding point. That is equal to 0.45mm burrs distance.
For Lido 3, the burrs rub at 2 mark from burrs binding point. That is equal to 0.25mm burrs distance. If it's 3 marks, that is still 0.375mm.

I am guessing that's the benefit from narrower tolerance of Swiss burrs manufacturing.

Hi Sam, I wonder if the burrs in Lido3 has the same measurements as the burrs in Rosco/Lido 1/Hausgrind...
Is it possible you could measure the burr? Or has this question been answered in another thread?

I found the answer myself
Here about the Lido2 (burrs are 48mm): http://www.oehandgrinders.com/OE-LIDO-2 ... _p_14.html

Here from Doug (Lido2 and Lido3 burrs are the same size): LIDO 3 Pictures from SCAJ show in Japan

My thought was that I could swap the Rosco burrs with the Lido3 burrs (just for fun) - but as the Lido3 burrs are bigger (Rosco burrs are 38mm), this will call for a new burr-carrier on the Rosco... Maybe it can be done, but it will take some quality time with a lathe

Would either of you be willing to give a more in depth comparison between the grind quality (evenness, fines, etc.) differences you notice between the Lido 2 and 3? I read the feedback you gave so far, and they seem rather similar, but I was wondering if you had sieves, or any other way of quantifying or describing any differences you see. The Lido 3 looks pretty sharp, and I'm liking how increasingly refined the Lido design is becomming.

So what's the verdict on LIDO 2 vs 3 for espresso?

This forum has a tendency to compare equipment A vs B to find out which gives the superior taste. Truth is, once the equipment has achieved a certain level of standard, the difference has become very miniscule in the grand scheme of things. IE, you can change the taste more significantly with dialing in(dose/ratio etc) than using different equipment. In this case, what's more important is the ergonomic & other factors other than the taste itself. This is what I observed on the Lido 3, Rosco Mini, and Compak K10.

I have been doing a few comparison tests in the week, but has refrained from posting anything because I couldn't get anything conclusive.

First, let's talk about uniformity for coarse grind. I did quite a few samples and was hard-pressed to tell any significant difference. The difficulty also lies within the point of sampling and how you spread the sample, because there is very slight variation even in the sample itself.

This is as close as I could to get same grind size between the two grinders (Rosco Mini vs Lido 3). If there's a significant difference from one to the other, let me know and I will reveal which is which.




I also did a taste test for espresso(Rosco vs Lido vs Compak K10). My procedure is not very elaborate and not scientific at all. Budget and time especially is precious nowadays. I just dial in close enough and then pull one shot from each grinder.

Taste wise, they're very close. The difference between small conical vs large conical is much smaller than the flat vs conical. I had a hard time picking the differences up, being their flavor profile quite similar (it's another story if you ask me how easy was to dial in into the range, or the ergonomics). Only perceptible difference is the big conical gives a slightly stronger and more intense flavor attack. Analogically, on the palate, K10's flavor was like a sustaining wave (Y axis is the flavor, X axis is the time), whereas the smaller conical has a slightly faster-fading wave. But, it's a very minute difference and I can't even be sure it's not due to bias nor dialing in issue.

So, my conclusion is, there's no point going to compare taste. They'll be very close and you will not go wrong with any one of them. I will hazard to say that the outcome will be similar even if I have a Lido 2 in the mix.

Of course, unless someone is going to fund me for my time & coffee beans, then I'm happy to conduct more tests. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense to focus on other aspects of the grinder than on this miniscule difference (look forward to Kang's observation). Taste/performance is not a factor for consideration because it'll definitely be more than good enough.

Just to bring this point further, let's say we have this imaginary barista competition where only Lido 2 & 3 are allowed, none of them will win because of the grinder (sorry, no bulk grinder allowed ). It'll be the barista skill and the coffee itself.

I would assume taste difference to be small but a new burr needs to be vetted:)

I had an opportunity to see the LIDO 3 yesterday, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to grind with it. The folding handle is sweet, and the popper stopper is great. I got one for my LIDO 2, and it clears that issue up nicely. The 3 is noticeably lighter than the 2.