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.

Page 2 -

Loading...

Something went wrong while trying to load the full version of this site. Try hard-refreshing this page to fix the error.