I have a WDT tool, it stays in the back of a drawer. I honestly couldn’t taste a difference that warranted the additional step in the process. That’s just me though, I’m sure many others disagree.
La Marzocco Linea Mini - Mazzer Philos
Ikawa Roaster
HarveyMushman yeah but you can make the patterns and the stirring is quite theraputic - bit like the shaking….
“My refractometer says the best extractions are from three concentric circles spaced at 4mm and a triangle with at least one 47 degree angle”
La Marzocco Linea Mini - Mazzer Philos
Ikawa Roaster
HarveyMushman Refractometers don’t measure better, best, worse - nor do they have opinions. Like scales, thermometers/probes, they measure more, or less of a tangible & measurable parameter.
Classic straw man.
I figured the rest of that post made it quite clear that it was tongue in cheek, but hey at least you managed still to prove me wrong. Gold star for you!
La Marzocco Linea Mini - Mazzer Philos
Ikawa Roaster
HarveyMushman Thanks, I’ll put it on my chart.
I think the message is getting lost in translation. Can you get good coffee without WDT? Yes, you can. Does the shaker produce better tasting coffee and the WDT produces rubbish? Absolutely not.
With WDT and shaking, you get higher extractions, all other parameters being equal. What these techniques allow you to do is achieve the extractions at coarser grind settings, which means more consistent extractions. A high EY by itself means nothing. You can simply achieve that by changing the other parameters such as grinding finer. The problem is that when you do that, there’s more uneven extraction and more chances of extracting unpleasant stuff.
Essentially what you’re trying to achieve is consistent extractions which is where WDT/shaking helps. This is my understanding. Happy to be corrected.
I finally watched the videos and after years of improving my wdt I think I’ve got good puck prep and the shots from bottomless pf look great.
Opting for a shake for 10 secs when grinds cup on the pf to mirror the magic cup and then wdt and pour seems to consistently give me 5-8 seconds longer pour.
Is this expected? Better more even distribution so I need to grind coarser now? Presumably as the water was slightly channeling even if not evident from watching?
drdre89 not in my experience. It depends how long you shake for. The longer you shake, the slower the extraction. Also, in the experiments by Lance, there was no difference in extraction times between WDT and shaking. In the latest video in which he explains how he makes espresso, he has recommended doing faster shots- this is not the consequence of shaking. It’s simply how he prefers his shots.
MediumRoastSteam You have to be happy with what works for you. If grind, tamp, pull works… Happy days. If you feel the need that things taste better adding further steps, happy days too.
Exactly that.
I guuess it’s about motivation, and objectives. My objective is a cup of coffee I enjoy, and my motivation is pretty much finding the simplest way of getting there.
That said, I’m certainly up for considering both extra tools, and a change in technique. I would also concur that a degree of applying a rigorous approach and methodology can produce …. ‘insights’. How much of a given suggestion, say a WDT tool, is mythology and marketing, and how much produces a significant difference.
And that word, “significant” is where, personally, I draw the line.
If I buy, and apply, a WDT to my workflow doess it result in a difference I cabn taste? and of course, is that difference an improvement? The same logic applies to any new tool or technique - what’s the cost, both in time, effort and of course, money. And does it result in a predictable and reasoably consistent improvement in taste? If not, what’s the point?
But there’s one over-riding, critically impotant factor - exactly ONE person (me) is tasting my coffee with my tastebuds.
So while I wouldn’t disparage any amount of testing, any use of toos whether rigourously justified or simply preferred ritual, that anyone ELSE wants to do. They’re using their tastebuds, which may well be better than mine, OR it may simply be that they’re into the ‘mystique’ of coffee prep rituals? If that’s what floats teir boat and tey enjoy it, fair enough.
I’ve done what, for me, is quite a lot of testing of what works and have subjectve notes (my own little points system) on every (and I do mean every) cup I’ve brewed in several years. All my data suggests that, for me, most of the fancier messing about with technique don’t produce a cup noticable better in taste. So I no longer faff about. I grind the coffee, up-end the grind cu into the prtafilter basket, give it a quick tap, a quick shake to level it out some, tap the grind cup to dislodge as much grinds as possible and remove it. A quick smooth of any mounds, if any , then I use a couple of twils of one of those leveller thingies (mainly because I bought the damd thing and it wasn’t cheap, so I’m absolutely using it, quick tamp and off to the races.
About the one thing (once grind size is about right) has has occupied my time is trying to simply be consistent, especially with tamp pressure. Thiss is tricky for me, as much for medical reasons as anything. But lack of that consistency certainly does have a noticeable impact on brew times. So I do all I can to be consistent.
Beyond that, and as long as I get a nice cup, I don’t care for faffing about. I don’t care if extraction is a tiny bit higher or lower, if time is a bit more or less UNLESS it results in a noticeably worse drinking experience.
As you said, Medium, pretty much grind, tamp and pull (more or less) works for me, and I’m happy enough with the results.
I have added slow feeding to my routine and re started using the blind shaker again that I had stopped using months ago. Not really sure if I can detect any material change or improvement but I will keep doing it to assess over a longer time.
chlorox I have added slow feeding to my routine
Does the Niche Z, through its rotating anti-popcorning disk, effectively slow feed? Just how slow are we talking about?
Then there is “hot starting”.
Ok, shake, well actually shake blind. Then go hot then go slow. In the human world that’s well, a challenge 😁
This is all getting quite silly 😂
I implement it here
Decent De1pro v1.45 - Niche Duo - Niche Zero - Decent is the best machine ever made -
Slow feeding with the Niche ? I thought this wasn’t necessary nor beneficial ?
mailto:kafar@btinternet.com
prezes Only tried it for pour over, once, no improvement in the brew, it moved the average grind size slightly coarser, without significantly affecting the distribution.
What it did do though, was very effectively launch whole & partial beans into the air. Even if there was a tangible benefit, I’m not doing it again.
I’ve given the Blind Shaker style distribution tool a fair go, for quite a number of shots. It does seem to increase the density of the grounds in the puck and (based upon taste only - I haven’t done any refractometer tests) increase espresso strength.
But unless you release the grounds perfectly into the basket, you get clumps and visually uneven distribution; it’s rare to not have surface clumps with the Blind Shaker. Carefully twirling and lifting the stick helps, but I still see surface clumps. I break these up with a quick surface rake, but I just don’t like having them there.
And I do generally see evidence of less than perfect distribution. When I first started using the blind shaker, I saw significant evidence of pour distribution. As my technique improved it got better. But still sometimes less than perfect.
Moreover the flow (and time) varies with just how and how long you shake. I can visually see this in my shot graphs, on the Decent. So it adds a variable that I don’t need or want.
So I am going back to WDT for a while. This will likely produce a somewhat less dense puck (I noticed that my shots ran faster with WDT and slower with the Blind Shaker) which means that I will have to grind finer. But atleast my shots will return to being consistently more even.
I had eliminated distribution (and channelling) as a variable, along with tamping as a variable, along time ago. The buzz generated from a certain influencer’s hyperbolic video made me give the Blind Shaker a whirl, but I am going back to my tried and true. Kudos to him for doing the tests; it’s good to try and test new things. It’s just not for me.
JHCCoffee The buzz generated from a certain influencer’s hyperbolic video made me give the Blind Shaker a whirl, but I am going back to my tried and true. Kudos to him for doing the tests; it’s good to try and test new things. It’s just not for me.
Sure, do what works best for you, but the idea didn’t originate from said influencer, he just popularised it.
