Grinders are one of the keys to exceptional espresso. Discuss them here.
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?
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?