Top 5 Grinders for Light Roast Espresso Application - Page 4

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

Postby RyanJE » Feb 07, 2019, 3:32 pm

Chert wrote:Also off topic, but maybe an accompanying list of type 5 light roast coffees over which to argue about ideal grinder for, is needed.
possibly:
TW
Heart
Coffee Collective
Slate
Kuma

I don't know which blends or origin, I don't buy much roasted.

@Mivantsky or @cebseb or @malling suggest a list, preferably with specific origin or blend?


I've had my share of Heart and TW coffee, I actually think Heart isn't all that light. Most of my coffees from Intelly seem a bit lighter.

OH I know! Another thing we could deliberate on for eternity, how do we even define light roast? This makes it almost impossible to compare grinders for "light" roast since there is no universal agreed upon definition of "Light".
I drink two shots before I drink two shots, then I drink two more....

Bunkmil

Postby Bunkmil » Feb 07, 2019, 3:58 pm

Denis wrote:I'll give you a simple example, pull yourself or go to anyone else and do the following:
grind with conical - pull the longest shot you can up to 1:3 ratio. The Longest mean that you can drink it and it is ok as taste, no dark-bitter-slow flow shot. It will be between 35 and 45 seconds top (with preinfusion).
<image>


It may be true if you can't control the flow or the pressure of your machine but I can pull 90s shots with my HG-1/DE1combo without getting into the bitter area. Here's a graph of a 90s 1:3 ratio I pulled recently:

Image

Would that shot have been better if I used a flat ? I don't know.

CwD

Postby CwD » Feb 07, 2019, 5:48 pm

Denis wrote:Same coffees, same dose and beverage output, same pressure and same brewing temperature, same water, ground to produce the same running time, served at same temperature.

This kind of thing doesn't work, at all. It fails to take advantage of what you can do with flats, cripples it by holdind it to outdated standards. And matching both dose and output raises tds on flats beyond what most people seem to like. Measured tds% needs to be fixed (to within .1% or so, some research I'm doing is finding usually about .03% but up to about .05% between samples of the same shot so I think .1% is reasonable to match with two shots), using whatever beverage weight it takes to get there. Strength is too preference oriented to not be fixed.

And need someone who knows how to dial in right. Overly high strength but without defects is not to be corrected by extracting less like I so often see unless you're on the very edge of defects. And even then bypass is better than extracting less.

RyanJE wrote:OH I know! Another thing we could deliberate on for eternity, how do we even define light roast? This makes it almost impossible to compare grinders for "light" roast since there is no universal agreed upon definition of "Light".

Nothing at all darker than Wendelboe or Coffee Collective filter roast.

guydebord

Postby guydebord » Feb 07, 2019, 6:29 pm

nuketopia wrote:I still say it is a load of mythology.

Double blind test or go home.

My money is on no statistical evidence of taster being able to identify the burr type.

Same coffees, same dose and beverage output, same pressure and same brewing temperature, same water, ground to produce the same running time, served at same temperature.

Lots consisting of randomized samples to include lots consisting of all from one type.

Servers and tasters blinded to sample composition.

Betcha, no evidence of identifying the burr type. I'd even be willing to bet no evidence of being able to ID which are different.


Im with you on this one. Mythology is always overly present in top-end hobby discussions, its fun and all, but any deterministic claim of certain magnitude should come with serious scientific evidence. Someone commented above about the similarities with hi-fi, esoteric discussions backed by selective evidence and extreme fan-boyism are certainly common in both hobbies, I relate a lot to this.

For example, in the hi-fi world discussions over cable materials are abundant and science can easily tell us why gold is a better conductor than silver or other alloys, however, when people have done double blind testing, most of the time gold alloys (the most expensive) do not shine through as the preferred conductor for pristine sound reproduction. Here I am reading the same selective discussion syndrome, if differences cannot be traced or tasted in the cup with a scientific approach, then "bigger is better" or "more expensive is better" or "X geometry/material is better" then its just a subjective discussion in equipment fetish.

In short, we the community must have fun and begin to venture into collective double blind testing, it will benefit us all. Dont you think?
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

CwD

Postby CwD » Feb 07, 2019, 6:46 pm

Unlike audio, we have an easy and relatively inexpensive way for end users to actually objectively measure results. It just gets denounced here because people with outdated gear don't like being told their gear is outdated.

Also, gold is a worse conductor than silver or even copper. Gold is just better with not corroding. Doesn't really matter to your point, but it's a weirdly persistent myth. And they measure the same on the output end for frequency response anyway. It's like if people here were arguing for a type of burrs because of some property of the metal instead of on the particle distribution.

guydebord

Postby guydebord » Feb 07, 2019, 7:38 pm

CwD wrote:Unlike audio, we have an easy and relatively inexpensive way for end users to actually objectively measure results. It just gets denounced here because people with outdated gear don't like being told their gear is outdated.


Yes, you are right, but also superiority gets announced because people who spend a lot of money on the latest gear need to prove or justify to themselves and others that the expense was worth it and psychologically makes them feel at the peak. Hi-Fi is mostly composed of the later. I guess it's a composition of the two plus a smaller percentage of those that are a bit more skeptical until most subjectivities are moved aside in a properly arranged double blind test. And then of course, its the factor of diminishing returns, which hardly gets talked about. Continuing with the hifi analogy, if I need to listen to the same track 20 times to properly detect a brighter cymbal in the background and for that I need to pay $10K more, well.... Nevertheless a lot of people pay it, I certainly did and thankfully don't do it anymore, all I needed was a super fun, weekend long double blind test with a bunch of friends to help me ground myself again and sell those cables :mrgreen:
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

discsinthesky

Postby discsinthesky » replying to guydebord » Feb 07, 2019, 8:31 pm

I'm pretty new here but I feel like diminishing returns gets talked about plenty. But I think it's also important to note that over time with enough small returns we can get end result that is significantly better than what we started with, even when the incremental progress along the way doesn't feel "worth it". In that sense, the small returns still push the craft forward and I think that's good for all of us.

Aguirre

Postby Aguirre » Feb 07, 2019, 8:49 pm

nuketopia wrote:I still say it is a load of mythology.

Double blind test or go home.

My money is on no statistical evidence of taster being able to identify the burr type.

Same coffees, same dose and beverage output, same pressure and same brewing temperature, same water, ground to produce the same running time, served at same temperature.

Lots consisting of randomized samples to include lots consisting of all from one type.

Servers and tasters blinded to sample composition.

Betcha, no evidence of identifying the burr type. I'd even be willing to bet no evidence of being able to ID which are different.


So just to confirm I understood what you're saying:
You believe espressos with 19% vs 25% EY will be indistinguishable from each other in terms of taste?

nuketopia

Postby nuketopia » replying to Aguirre » Feb 07, 2019, 9:33 pm

Nope, not what I said at all. Reading is fundamental, so go re-read my words that you quoted.

I will put a $1000 donation to Shriner's Children Hospital that no double blind test will indicate that burr type can be statistically positively identified by tasting alone.

Aguirre

Postby Aguirre » Feb 07, 2019, 9:50 pm

No need to read again what you said.

What I'm implying here is that the blind test you suggested, as others have said, potentially would not address the main point of this topic: what is the best grinder for light roasts.

Indeed, maybe by fixing all the parameters as you proposed, the difference could be not so evident.

So maybe the best approach for this blind test would be:

Same coffee
Same machine
Same water

Step 1: get a group of experienced baristas to dial in the grinders and shot parameters for the best tasting shot for each grinder.

Step 2: pull the shots with parameters from previous step and apply the test with a different group of people.

The question would be simple one : which one tastes best?

Do you still bet your money there would be no winner?

nuketopia wrote:We spend way more time dinking around over equipment than we do coffee - curiously being that coffee is the most important part of the whole process. :)


I think the reason for that is because equipment (and technique) is what we can control more. Getting to choose the right coffee, identify and play with its nuances, and ultimately drink and enjoy it, this is where the magic lies.

We spend a lot of time on equipment discussion, in a quest to get the most and the best out of the coffee we choose. And I'm glad we do it A LOT. Every day I learn a bit more.