As some of you may know I have an obsession with grinders because a few short years ago I discovered that a grinder can make a massive difference to the quality of espresso that both the worst espresso machine and the very best espresso machine can produce. To date I've reviewed several grinders and I have a couple more reviews that I'm working on being the Lagom Mini and Varia VS3. The purpose of creating this thread is to outline my plan for setting up a dedicted bench for reviewing and comparing grinders. And of course I'll publish my observations here and on the Australian forum Coffee Snobs. **I'm inviting you to post suggestions for optimizing the set up … pretty please.** The reason for wanting to compare grinders, as opposed to only reviewing them in isolation (which I will probably still do), is that a "better" grinder has to be relative to something i.e. "better than what?". Initially, I'll use an Olympia Moca SD as the benchmark grinder. At least until another grinder knocks it off the throne. At first I'll limit my comparisions to using medium roasted (or thereabouts) espresso but as I learn and understand more about light roast espresso and brew/pour-over I can incorprate relevant comparisions in those areas too. When comparing two different grinders, it's obviously critical to use the same beans and the same espresso machine so that the playing field is as level as possible. And for me it's also important that when comparing any two grinders that the shots have are sampled side by side, one immediately after the other. Waiting five minutes between samples makes direct comparisions more difficult. I've found that for me personally, contrasts tend to be more stark when espressos are sampled one immediately after the other. But that raises a challenge I've struggled with in the past which is that when comparing the espresso from two grinders using the same espresso machine, the two espressos are sampled at different temperatures. That's a problem because espresso changes flavor as it cools and so the playing field is tilted in favor of one or other of the espressos, when back to back pours are made using the one espresso machine. Some professional tasters will let coffee cool to room temperature (or to body temperature) before comparing samples but most of us don't drink espresso at room temperature; we prefer to start sipping when it's just finished pouring or very soon thereafter. So the challenge is to sample the two espressos from the two grinders not just at the same time but also at the same temperature. My solution is to set up two ECM Puristka espresso machines at either end of the spare bench in my roastery with ample space in between for three grinders. I've chosen the Puristika because space is limited and it has a tiny footprint and ECM is one of the highest quality espresso machines I've ever owned (Technika and then Synchronika) and my guess is that the temperature and pressure readings will be relatively accurate and consistent across both machines. The Moca SD will sit inbetween the two Puristikas and that leaves enough space for whichever two other grinders I am comparing. With this set up I can grind from each of the two comparison grinders simultaneously, WDT and tamp each basket successively but swiftly, and then pour simultaneously. I can then sample each espresso side by side at what would obstenibly be the same temperature and record my subjective impressions using blind tasting with my wife switching the two cups a random number of times while I look away. I also have a DiFluid refractomter and companions scales to record objective measurements i.e. TDS and extraction yield numbers, once the espresso cools. (Am I OCD? Probably "on the spectrum" as they say.) I have a couple of DF64s on the way along with 7 x 64mm burr sets of various makes to get the show on the road. They will be repaced with DF64Vs towards the middle of the year when my pre-order arrives. Using the DFs (whatever model) makes it easier to compare a whole range of burr sets whilst still using the same grinder body. I figure that I may as well start with a "bang for bucks" option. "Why are you doing this?" I hear you ask. Because I love this stuff and because as the years tick by, I increasingly apprecate that life is too short not to do the things that I enjoy, even though it's somewhat pricey. Besides, at this rate there will be enough grinders for each of my kids and grandkids to inherit one each 😀 **Any and all questions, comments, suggestions and referrals for pychriactic help will be welcomed.** (The latter more so by my eternally patient wife than by me).

its a challenge i wish you luck with lol you're going to have to be super picky, because imo the difference is going to be soooo tiny. do a triangle test, see if you can pick etc there was a great vid on youtube, i cant find it now, the study too 500 normal people triangel tested, then moved onto the coffee industry big wigs, but ive lost the link. for me, id use the same machine, a second machine adds more variables

The benchmark grinder should ideally be your daily go to grinder, which I assume is the Olympia Moca SD. :-)

Really nice idea. I’m likely alone in this so might be a waste of your time 😅 but it would be great to see you stack up an on-demand grinder against some of the others. I’ve not tried a list of grinders anywhere near as extensive as yourself or some others but I’m still convinced the Super Jolly (e version) with the Mazzer burrs when used on-demand as intended is an absolutely brilliant grinder which has certainly stood up to the others I’ve tried/owned both SD and OD.

The temp thing seems easy to resolve. Test two shots side by side then repeat the test making the first shot with the other machine.

> @"Cuprajake"#p40169 there was a great vid on youtube, i cant find it now, the study too 500 normal people triangel tested, then moved onto the coffee industry big wigs, but ive lost the link. Is it this one? The section I think you're referring to is at the 29 m mark, and at the 38 m mark data is presented that says 164 coffee professionals could not distinguish between flat and conical grinders. https://youtu.be/3XYTi6OBecA This paper seems to be the source of that presentation. http://magnatune.com/p/grinder_report.pdf

@"wilburpan"#p40201 think so, ive actually linked to it on the forum i just couldnt find it haha

@"tompoland"#p40166 My espresso/grinder experience is certainly less extensive than yours, having really only started drinking espresso on a regular basis since last February, and having owned a whopping two grinders. But I know a fair amount about clinical trial design from the day job, so maybe this will be of help. You've done a good job isolating the variables that may influence your observations between two grinders. If you're going to be recording subjective impressions, there is a standard approach to identify differences based on subjective measurements/observations. First, you do several runs of blinded testing with each grinder comparison. The most important thing is that during this process, keep the identity of the grinder secret while doing this. After you've done that, your wife can reveal which cups and observations were from which grinder, so you can group your subjective observations. Then look for thematic consistencies in each group of subjective observations. For example, if you observe "fruity notes", and that description consistently shows up in the observations from one grinder, then that indicates that there's something about that grinder that brings out fruity notes. But if that description is seen in both sets of observations, then it's not likely to be due to a difference between grinders. And if you want to be really rigorous about this, your role would be just to record your observations. After the observations are unblinded and grouped, multiple people besides you (your wife and her friends?) review the grouped unblinded observations to see if there are themes that show up in one group and not the other. What you're looking for is agreement among multiple people that the "fruity note" observation is consistently associated with one grinder and not the other. As a matter of fact, if you take this approach, you may not have to do the "make two espresso shots simultaneously" thing, which may make things a lot easier. You could have your wife grind the beans with one randomly chosen grinder, and hand you the end product without letting you know which grinder was used. Then you make espresso and record your observations. With this, you can do this at your own pace. Keep doing this until you have several observations for each grinder. Then your wife reveals which observations were from which grinder, and then do the thematic analysis as I described.

@"Cuprajake"#p40204 You were very likely the person that brought this to my attention in the first place. Circle of life! 😆

Opinions, experience, expectations certainly vary, but I find it hilarious how much time/effort/money some spend on grinders, which usually gives a slightly different end result, rarely actually better. I get that some like to analyze every possible variable to the nanogram, but will gladly/honestly say that far more of an effective end result can be reached by pursuing the coffees being used more than equipment alone. Get a quality/capable machine/grinder that matches your use and then any flavor/texture can be had by dialing in the coffee itself. I can manipulate any sort of notes I want, heavy texture, more/less acidity, etc. by sourcing certain greens and then blending/roasting to give me exactly what I expect the equipment to do to give the end result I expect.

Grinder comparision lab (TLDR warning)

MWJB

Dusk cupping comes with it’s own variables, it doesn’t avoid any more/less. It’s a quick and convenient way to compare multiple coffees in real time. That’s all.

Grind setting, brew ratio and steep time are just as relevant for cupping, and many folks have different ideas on these things but still call what they do, “cupping”. (Which is fine with me, I don’t see any magic, or great desirability to following the SCAA protocol).

MWJB

I think it reasonable to expect ‘differences’ between grinders, when dialed in comparably, the important question is what are these differences in a sensory aspect and do they align with your specific preferences (I predominantly want to enjoy my coffee, not make sure it adheres to someone else’s perception, when they brewed it 50 miles away, with everything else being different).

tompoland

MWJB the important question is what are these differences in a sensory aspect and do they align with your specific preferences

very astute, you’ve just articulated yet another challenge in setting up my little grinder lab. That of my own personal preferences. To date, I’ve stated those preferences as a frame of reference for readers, when writing a grinder review. I’m not sure there are more practical alternatives at the moment. Just as some reviewers have a perchant for light roasts e.g. Hoffman/Hedricks, I have a preference for medium roasts.

MWJB

@tompoland What will your dial in procedure be?

With any refractometer you will need to filter the samples for espresso. This will get expensive quick and having EY measurements won’t affect the other factors in the test, so I’m not sure what the value will be (unless it’s just a dial in aid)?

tompoland

MWJB What will your dial in procedure be?

With any refractometer you will need to filter the samples for espresso. This will get expensive quick and having EY measurements won’t affect the other factors in the test, so I’m not sure what the value will be (unless it’s just a dial in aid)?

still exploring all of that, hence the solicitation of ideas here.

you’ll probably have seen my comments above about comparing similar grinders and using the same dial in parameters for both as opposed to comparing very dissimilar grinders and having to have completely different dial in parameters in order to get the best out of each grinder.

And that makes even more sense because not too many people are going to be interested in comparing two complete different grinders e.g. a Breville Smart Pro to an EG-1. But an EG-1 and a Lagom P64 or P100 … maybe.

tompoland

MWJB With any refractometer you will need to filter the samples for espresso. This will get expensive quick and having EY measurements won’t affect the other factors in the test, so I’m not sure what the value will be (unless it’s just a dial in aid)?

That’s the way I see it, using the refractometer as a dial adjustment aid. Also as an objective confirmation of my subjective impressions. Kind of like an accuracy check. E.g. if I think one espresso is sweeter than the other, but the refractometer results suggest that it could be the other way around, that would warrant another pour.

The refractometer thing may become tiresome. I am trying to will myself into using it enough to get over the initial learning curve hump before I decide if it’s a long term fixture in the grinder lab or not.

(thanks again for your thoughts and questions, they are very helpful)

tompoland

Sham that wasn’t what I was going for but I’ll take it. Thanks!

tompoland

MWJB thanks for your thoughts.

“How did you normalise the brews to ensure as much of an apples to apples comparison?”

The a a bit of a tricky one.

A review is one thing, a comparision is a very different beast.

For example, some grinders/burrs produce their best espresso at different ratios to others. I’m using the Niche for a 1:2 ratio ristretto type pour and it works well with the Nurri. Flow rate is around 1ml/sec so it’s obviously a fine grind. But I doubt that would work so well on a Lamon P100 using SSP Multi Purpose burrs. So to set up all of the variables the same for two very different grinders would tilt the results in favor of one.

That being the case with a two burr set comparison, do I set all the variables the same e.g. grind size, gring to pour weight ratio, temperature, pre-infusion, pressure profile, and have a like for like comparison?

Or do I recognise that every burr set is different and find the best set of variables to get the most out of each grinder?

One solution may be to only compare similar burr sets e.g. two smaller conicals like the Varia VS3 and Lagom Mini or a Mazzer 64mm burr set to a Gorilla Gear 64mm DLC burr set. Or two big burr sets like the SSP HU (or MP) 98mm burrs with the 83mm DLC burrs from Turin.

And if there is not an obviously similar comparision to be had, then to simply review a grinder on its own merits and refrain from the temptation to compare apples with oranges.

Thoughts anyone?

JHCCoffee

tompoland So to set up all of the variables the same for two very different grinders would tilt the results in favor of one.

That being the case with a two burr set comparison, do I set all the variables the same e.g. grind size, gring to pour weight ratio, temperature, pre-infusion, pressure profile, and have a like for like comparison?

The more you and all dive into these issues the more complicated it seems to become. My gut feel is that if you put a specific bean through one grinder it will require a specific set of parameters to dial in (which really means subjectively taste “good”). If you take that same bean and put it through a very different grinder with the same parameters it will (by definition) not be dialed in correctly (ie not taste “good”) because that grinder requires a different set of parameters to dial in.

I never had the opportunity to do a side by side comparison of my prior Eureka Mignon with my current Niche with my go to bean, but know that they dialed in very differently.

Unfortunately I do think that you need to take both approaches: 1. Dial in until the shot tastes “good” for one style of drink (say a 1:1.5 ristretto) and also 2: Use a standardized set of parameters. Then try the above for a variety of bean roasts and types. Only then will you know how the grinder impacts taste and why.

I still have a conundrum about the above. Approach 1 will be (by definition) subjective. Approach 2 will (by definition) treat one grinder unfairly. I don’t know the answer to this conundrum.

Overall its going to be alot of work. But you will well know the ins and outs of how each grinder tastes by the time you are done.

If you could achieve one thing, and that is put the conical vs flat taste debate to rest, that would be awesome.

MWJB

tompoland Or do I recognise that every burr set is different and find the best set of variables to get the most out of each grinder?

This would be the only reasonable way. We make coffee because we like the taste, there’s no requirement for the coffee to meet time/weight trials if we’re getting the best cup from each grinder. I don’t see why different burrs at the same size should be treated any differently to burrs different from any other reason?

tompoland

Cuprajake it works well for me becasue I like self levelling tampers but the springs in most of them play havoc with my wrist arthritis. The Malwani tampers are aroun 800g and as such all I need to do is to sit the tamper on the coffee bed and gravity does most of the work. I simple push with fingertips on the edges of the tamper a la dave c does the rest

https://www.en.malwani.de/collections/praezisionstamper

MattH

tompoland Total off topic but have to agree the tamper is spot on… luckily they dont do 53mm version 😂

tompoland

MWJB What is the difference? What was the brew method?

Not 100% sure what you mean by this. Do you mean what’s the difference in the cup? Probably not becasue you have a great knowledge of these things already. Let me know if you are referring to something else.

But in case anyone else is wondering, the biggest difference is the seperation of notes with the Lagom versus the Niche (which I love and use most days) delivering more of a one-flavor punch.

Again, before legions of Niche lovers assail me with posts, I’m not knocking the Niche, I’m stating the obvious which is that it does something brilliantly well that the Lagom can’t do but also visa versa. You can’t manipulate a Lagom to taste like a Niche any more than you can manipulate a Niche to taste like a Lagom.

Yes, you can alter the results in the cup of both by changing beans, grind size, temperature and pressure profiling but the effects of changing all of these variables have their limits which are bounded by the burr geometry.

MWJB

tompoland Not 100% sure what you mean by this. Do you mean what’s the difference in the cup? Probably not becasue you have a great knowledge of these things already. Let me know if you are referring to something else.

Sure, what is the difference in taste?
Was it consistent accross 10 coffees (I often find that 2 grinders will go back & forth on preferred cups with different coffees, all else being equal)?
How did you ensure that you weren’t ‘making’ the difference, hence I asked about the brew method (tried & tested already, normalised over differing grinders)?
Which grinder made the nicest coffee (if flavours are separated and it is a flavour you do not like, is that good)?

MWJB

tompoland E.g. if I think one espresso is sweeter than the other, but the refractometer results suggest that it could be the other way around, that would warrant another pour.

Refractometers can’t do this.

tompoland

JHCCoffee The more you and all dive into these issues the more complicated it seems to become

Yep.

So I need a protocol for “making it as simple as possible, but not simpler”.

Thanks for your thoughts…

tompoland

JHCCoffee If you could achieve one thing, and that is put the conical vs flat taste debate to rest, that would be awesome.

It’s at rest in my mind 😁 … I guess that’s a start.

But it’s like most coffee things, there are multiple layers of complexity once you scratch below the surface.

MWJB

[unknown] Not 100% sure what you mean by this. Do you mean what’s the difference in the cup? Probably not becasue you have a great knowledge of these things already. Let me know if you are referring to something else.

tompoland

MattH bad news … he did two custom sizes for me … so … maybe …

tompoland

MWJB i worded that a bit loosely. If I end up using one it’ll be as a confirmation or cancellation of my subjective conclusions. And as a guide to dialling in.

This is all s"eeing further than my feet have trod" so I expect this project to be a work in progress for some time.

tompoland

Thanks for all contributions.

What I’ve settled on is to review each grinder (or burr set) on it’s own merits, dialling it in as best I can, and to publish each review like I did for the Honne and Moca SD.

And to seperaately complete comparisions for two grinders or burr sets that (a) I have already reviewed and (b) are built for a similar audience and have similar dialling in characteristics.

A key differentiator for my project is the simultaneous grind and pour and then (blind) tasting for the comparisons, which will require two grinders side by side (as well as the two ECM Puristikas) for each comparision. That is as opposed to comparisons using sequential grind/pours/tasting. I’m convinced that this simultaneous method makes the comparisions so much easier and more accurate.

Onward…

I’m going to kick things off with a review of the Lagom Mini followed by a review of the Varia VS3 with it’s different burr sets, and then a seperate comparision of the two, side by side.

With the annual Easter Invasion of The Ankle Biters you probably won’t see the first review out until some time after Easter.

The plan would then be to move on to review the DF64s and its different burr sets and then ditto with the DF84 and then to publish a seperate comparison of the two. I’ve seen a few posts where people are asking which one to buy so it may be a relevant comparison despite the difference in burr size.

wilburpan

tompoland A key differentiator for my project is the simultaneous grind and pour and then (blind) tasting for the comparisons, which will require two grinders side by side (as well as the two ECM Puristikas) for each comparision. That is as opposed to comparisons using sequential grind/pours/tasting. I’m convinced that this simultaneous method makes the comparisions so much easier and more accurate.

I admire the willingness to put in the work to do simultaneous grind, pour, and tasting for the comparisons. That won’t be easy.

How many repetitions of the head-to-head comparisons are you planning before coming to a conclusion?

« Previous Page Next Page »