Blind shaker better than WDT??

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
mlunsford27
Posts: 168
Joined: 5 years ago

#1: Post by mlunsford27 »

What do yall think of the claim that blind shaker is better than WDT by Lance Hedrick? Anyone have experience with using the blind shaker and can confirm his findings?

User avatar
Jeff
Team HB
Posts: 6906
Joined: 19 years ago

#2: Post by Jeff »

Mod note: Already under discussion at Shaking a dosing cup and then leveling vs. WDT

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB
Posts: 13947
Joined: 19 years ago

#3: Post by another_jim »

If you started single dosing many years ago, by clacking a doser, you'll know it can get rid of clumps. A blind shaker works similarly, and has become standard equipment for many single dosing grinders.

Many of the same single dosing grinders offer a choice of blind shaker or direct into PF dosing. Direct into PF dosing can be clumpy on single dosing grinders (in on-demand grinders, a few grams retention can create a squeeze tube effect that also gets rid of clumps). The Versalab has a wiper, and some new grinders have elctrostatic clump eliminators

Then there is the question of baskets, coffee roasts, and ambient conditions. Not to mention the machine with its preinfusion set up that can be more or less forgiving.

Does the picture become clearer??? Lance just figured out that a blind shaker worked better on that coffee with that grinder, with that set up on that afternoon. Congratulations. The next time he gets a meltdown with a particular coffee, grinder, or basket, he'll do WDT, like everyone else.

If people spent as long pulling shots as watching YouTube, they'd get in their 10,000 hours, and stop wondering whether they really know how to prep a shot. Personally, after putting in my 10,000 hours, I just avoid overdosed, fussy baskets, which remain a PITA regardless of technique, even after 10,000 hours.
Jim Schulman

mlunsford27 (original poster)
Posts: 168
Joined: 5 years ago

#4: Post by mlunsford27 (original poster) »

Jeff wrote:Mod note: Already under discussion at Shaking a dosing cup and then leveling vs. WDT
Thanks, my bad for repeating

mlunsford27 (original poster)
Posts: 168
Joined: 5 years ago

#5: Post by mlunsford27 (original poster) »

another_jim wrote:If you started single dosing many years ago, by clacking a doser, you'll know it can get rid of clumps. A blind shaker works similarly, and has become standard equipment for many single dosing grinders.

Many of the same single dosing grinders offer a choice of blind shaker or direct into PF dosing. Direct into PF dosing can be clumpy on single dosing grinders (in on-demand grinders, a few grams retention can create a squeeze tube effect that also gets rid of clumps). The Versalab has a wiper, and some new grinders have elctrostatic clump eliminators

Then there is the question of baskets, coffee roasts, and ambient conditions. Not to mention the machine with its preinfusion set up that can be more or less forgiving.

Does the picture become clearer??? Lance just figured out that a blind shaker worked better on that coffee with that grinder, with that set up on that afternoon. Congratulations. The next time he gets a meltdown with a particular coffee, grinder, or basket, he'll do WDT, like everyone else.

If people spent as long pulling shots as watching YouTube, they'd get in their 10,000 hours, and stop wondering whether they really know how to prep a shot. Personally, after putting in my 10,000 hours, I just avoid overdosed, fussy baskets, which remain a PITA regardless of technique, even after 10,000 hours.
I think especially for folks who consider themselves a beginner like myself it is important for me to consider the advice of people like Lance with more experience and time to collect data like this. Obviously experience and doing it myself is important but learning from others is key to optimizing my own routine.

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB
Posts: 13947
Joined: 19 years ago

#6: Post by another_jim replying to mlunsford27 »

Your choice, my friend. Your espresso will taste much better if you don't explore the state space and variables of making shots, and instead faithfully stick to the one recommended method only. Who needs experience when you have Lance?
Jim Schulman

erik82
Posts: 2202
Joined: 12 years ago

#7: Post by erik82 »

My experience is exactly the same as that of Lance. Been using the Blind shaker for over 4 years so thousands of shots and hundreds of different coffees. I usually shake with the Blind shaker and than WDT a tiny bit. This combination gives me the best results.

Only using the shaker does a completely different thing than twacking a doser and works a lot better. In this case with my extensive experience with these variables I disagree with Jim.

PPapa
Posts: 188
Joined: 6 years ago

#8: Post by PPapa »

another_jim wrote:
Does the picture become clearer??? Lance just figured out that a blind shaker worked better on that coffee with that grinder, with that set up on that afternoon. Congratulations. The next time he gets a meltdown with a particular coffee, grinder, or basket, he'll do WDT, like everyone else.
It's just a poor experiment design, which doesn't give conclusive results.

What I don't understand is that he claims the blind shaker already does a good enough job of distribution, so WDT is unnecessary. If so, then why would he not remove it from the experiment and see what happens? It's meant to be a scientific experiment yet he claims it as a fact without confirming his theory.

I also imagine core burrs being a bit less fussy than some unimodals, and 20g VST basket is a bit more forgiving than some others.

Personally, I found a workflow that makes the results in the cup as consistent as possible, and I'm not ready to ditch my wdt.

User avatar
RapidCoffee
Team HB
Posts: 5016
Joined: 18 years ago

#9: Post by RapidCoffee »

First, kudos to Lance Hedrick for this study. I think he did a nice job and presented interesting findings. The only surprising results come from the Weber blind shaker.

Second, some historical background. When I published the WDT article (over 18 years ago!) it was a very different home barista scene. There were no $4000 home grinders and $8000 home espresso machines. Virtually all grinders had bean hoppers and most had dosers. Even so, I wrote:
Smaller capacity grinders found in even the best equipped home espresso environment may suffer from clumping, static, and uneven distribution...We can hope that these design flaws will eventually be addressed in home grinders.
Perhaps that day is come.

In my case, I got hooked on large commercial grinders during the Titan Grinder Project of 2007. But I've continued to perform puck prep (weighing grinds, stirring, leveling, tamping) for one reason: insurance. Unlike a commercial environment, I'm not banging out one shot after another. Taking a few extra seconds to help ensure good, consistent espresso is still worth it to me.
John
★ Helpful

User avatar
cafeIKE
Posts: 4716
Joined: 18 years ago

#10: Post by cafeIKE »

another_jim wrote:If people spent as long pulling shots as watching YouTube, they'd get in their 10,000 hours, and stop wondering whether they really know how to prep a shot. Personally, after putting in my 10,000 hours, I just avoid overdosed, fussy baskets, which remain a PITA regardless of technique, even after 10,000 hours.
The world has gone option silly.
Avoid PITA coffees that require silly machinations.
RapidCoffee wrote:Taking a few extra seconds to help ensure good, consistent espresso is still worth it to me.
All the falderal puts me in mind of golfers who shimmy, adjust their grip ten times and still rough it...