Agreed - I think it's fair to say that some of the audience asking questions were not familiar with hypothesis testing (which is fair given hospitality vs science background). Having both a science and liberal arts background I can see how well the presenter managed to bridge both fields... but still attracted needless criticism, I think, in part due to easing up on conveying the technicalities of integrating statistical analysis into the study design.MWJB wrote:Brutal yes, but I wonder if some of those individuals didn't nod off during the talk...the relevance of some of the questions was a bit tenuous.
If we look at the Nice test, that's 164 espressos, x3 for the triangle test...492 shots, all at a consistent TDS & yield? It would be interesting to see results from such a test, but I guess if it's going to happen, a good few folks are going to have to roll up their sleeves to make it so.
I would be concerned that, quite apart from the logistics, that 'background noise' from shot variation, would interfere with the results? To get a large enough, statistically robust sample, it strikes me that filter coffee would provide better consistency of samples?
Grinders are one of the keys to exceptional espresso. Discuss them here.
All coffee was batch brewed on BUNN equipment.samuellaw178 wrote: "164 coffee professionals in Nice, could actually NOT taste the difference between a flat and a conical grinder." - Francisca Listov-Saabye
Does this refer to brewed coffee or espresso? To me it seems the difference in espresso is quite remarkable to not be noticed. I may be wrong but I am curious to learn more.
To me (deduced from the audio track of Q&A) it is Klaus Thomsen who inquires like a HB grand jury...samuellaw178 wrote:p/s: The last few minutes of Q&A was quite brutal too, could they be from among us?