When we drink a cup of coffee, many factors contribute to how we perceive the brew. I known that it is complex and don’t know if these questions I got will make sense, but I’ll give it a try.

I assume there are existing resources on this subject. Any tips on reading material is also welcome.

Water, beans, roast, technique. Those things and more influence the brew, but I’m looking for what ends up in the cup. I’m assuming you got a properly roasted, good bean and good water.

A percentage of the bean ends up in the cup, extraction yield (EY), which determines the total dissolved solids (TDS), or how much of the brew came from the bean. This is an obvious factor in the flavor and enjoyment. 18-22% EY is typically mentioned, but it could maybe be 17-23%, or wider. I’m not looking for numbers, so the actual EY is irrelevant. The EY where the cup taste best to you could also be different from bean to bean.

Balance, astringency, mouthfeel, silt, thin, dry. Many words are used to describe a brew based on subjective taste. Is it possible to separate and categorize the different factors in a meaningful way that is comprehensible for most, and what possibly caused them?

You can have a balanced cup, well extracted, but with an element of unpleasantness caused by how it feels in the mouth. I thought Mark’s recent experimentation with V60 filters was interesting, where he thought brews made with new papers at a grind equal to the old Hario papers created an unwanted silt/mouthfeel. He reacted by grinding coarser and extending the brew time to still achieve an extraction that made it taste good.

My understanding of this is that the brews at a finer setting had the taste, extraction and balance that was enjoyable, but the unwanted mouthfeel added an element that made it less enjoyable.

Many spend a lot of money on equipment and beans, calibrating and tuning it all with the available equipment, but once the liquid is in the cup, taste is the only thing that matters. We can measure parts of what’s in the cup, but the complexity and various properties we perceive when tasting are impossible to measure and will only reveal themselves once it hits your mouth. I find it fascinating and would like to learn more about what makes up the enjoyment, how it tastes and feels.

One could get into a very scientific area, naming molecules and what the coffee consist of, but I don’t know if that is helpful to understand the taste and what caused it.

Can some of the properties be lumped together? Is balance a result of a good extraction, or can you have an ideal extraction for that bean with the method you use (given that you know what this is), but an off balance that makes it less enjoyable?

If you can hit the extraction with a very coarse grind, can other elements contribute to the brew still tasting poorly?

    This is obviously not a question aimed at coffee plebs like me.

    Grind size and quality, what burrs were used, the bean quality, when roasted how long roasted, kept in a freezer, or in an airtight container, degassed properly. Then there is the water used, the mineral content, the PH values, the paper thickness, bleached or not, and what about puck screens? Oh ,and not forgetting the human factor, taste bud sensitivity, and dare I say even the mood we are in… stressed, calm whatever.

    Being a pleb, all I can say is when I drink it I do not want it to give me a face like a Camel sucking a lemon, just a nice satisfying ahhh. As to the properties involved as to how I get there, for me a coffee pleb, I wouldn’t know it if came up and smacked me in the face.

    But for you real coffee nerds/experts, and I do not mean those terms disparagingly, because I always value your advice. I do not think it is a question that can ever really be answered in full to anyone’s satisfaction. But I will enjoy reading those who wish to try.

      • MMWJB

        •  
      • Post #3
      • Edited

      Zephyp This is an obvious factor in the flavor and enjoyment. 18-22% EY is typically mentioned, but it could maybe be 17-23%, or wider. I’m not looking for numbers, so the actual EY is irrelevant. The EY where the cup taste best to you could also be different from bean to bean.

      Look at it as 95% of coffees in a 4% span (whether 17.5%-21.5%, or 18.5%-22.5%, or whatever (depends on allowances for moisture etc.), but that still allows for tasty coffees that might particularly shine a little outside that range.

      I find Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica tend to produce less soluble beans, Kenya, Colombia, Rwanda more soluble beans…so yes, from one bean to the next, you’ll get a different good tasting EY. Look at EY data as quantitative, big samples & loose, but tangible trends. A game of averages. It’s useful for going from a malfunction to getting in the ball-park, but not so much for super fine tuning.

      Every coffee produces an EY, however good or bad tasting, you can’t make coffee better than it is by tweaking EY, you can just avoid certain brew malfunctions. EYs were historically accompanied by overall liking scores (Quartermaster’s 9 point scale), to gauge preference. An EY by itself is meaningless as it has no context, the same way as if you enjoy an 18g dose of coffee, you won’t like all coffees and changing the dose won’t make every coffee wonderful.

      Zephyp Balance, astringency, mouthfeel, silt, thin, dry. Many words are used to describe a brew based on subjective taste. Is it possible to separate and categorize the different factors in a meaningful way that is comprehensible for most, and what possibly caused them?

      Balance - to me, not too tangy/sour/tart, not too bitter/dry/dark. It might have acidity/sourness/tartness & bitterness, but overall be not unpleasant, neither dominating the cup to its detriment.

      Astringency - 100 barista points for using the current coffee-sphere buzzword! :-) I hate the use of this meaningless, catch-all phrase to describe coffee that ’isn’t quite right’ for some unidentified reason. I’ve seen it used in cuppings and nobody over-extracts cuppings. It’s vague and does not describe a given fault. I wish people would stop using it. In wine speak it relates more to a grainy/powdery/silty quality. To me, in coffee, it specifically describes the drying, smokey, hop like bitterness of over-extraction. This is a distinct & immediately recogniseable type of drying sensation, it is also fairly rare & very easily fixed in 99% of cases by extracting less. Day to day, it’s not a major concern.

      Mouthfeel/silt - All coffee has some, people have differing expectations too…you could call it body, or texture. This is seperate to extraction as solids to not contribute to what is dissolved in your cup. If your coffee has a filmy mouthfeel, grainy feel, you might also feel that the acidity is attenuated and the coffee a little flat? Coarsening the grind, or pushing less water through the bed might fix it, without significantly affecting extraction. This, to me, is the day-to-day concerrn - avoiding under-extracted artefacts in the cup (most common issue), whilst minimising unpleasant/overbearing mouthfeel, associated bitter/charred/pithy flavours & squashed acidity.

      Zephyp One could get into a very scientific area, naming molecules and what the coffee consist of, but I don’t know if that is helpful to understand the taste and what caused it.

      Home users can’t perform any analysis, so I don’t think this helps anyone. Even if it did, corrections are still carried out the same way - grind setting & ratio. Which everyone can do. (Maybe temp too for espresso).

      Zephyp If you can hit the extraction with a very coarse grind, can other elements contribute to the brew still tasting poorly?

      You’re aiming to hit a preferential flavour, backed up with an objective EY measurement. If you are at an abnormally coarse grind, you might still hit an extraction yield that has been good at a finer setting but, the coffee might be thin in body/the perception of ‘weakness’ and, if you have had to agitate a lot/increase the pouring pulses to get there, you may also notice a silty/powdery aspect too that may detract from enjoyment.

                Pompeyexile Grind size and quality, what burrs were used,

                I know there are people with multiple grinders and those with multiple burrs for the same grinder, but in normal daily use, people will usually only be adjusting the grind size setting on a grinder (most important factor, whatever the grinder/burrs). Seperately adjusting the ‘quality’ won’t typically be feasible for most, nor a day to day activity.

                Pompeyexile Then there is the water used, the mineral content, the PH values,

                Similarly, I would hope that people settle on a water/make up that gives good results and don’t expect to get consistent cups by wildly changing properties.

                    MWJB Astringency - 100 barista points for using the current coffee-sphere buzzword! :-) I hate the use of this meaningless, catch-all phrase to describe coffee that ’isn’t quite right’ for some unidentified reason. I’ve seen it used in cuppings and nobody over-extracts cuppings. It’s vague and does not describe a given fault.

                    Astringency is definitely a buzzword that is used where it is not applicable. It can be present with channeled espresso or percolation brews but usually it is just bitterness that is being wrongly attributed.

                    But I do want to clarify in cupping it is (very usually) a fault of either underdeveloped roasting or underdeveloped cherries, lower extraction in cupping (and the lack of channeling) helps to eliminate the possibility of it being user related brewing error from over extraction. It will present as a puckering and drying of palette sensation same as with wine, and it is a roast/green defect that is important to pinpoint in both buying and roasting.

                    Coffee Roaster. Home: Sage Dual Boiler, Niche Zero, Ode v2 (SSP), 1zpresso ZP6 Work: Eagle One Prima EXP, mahlkonig e80s, Mazzer Philos and lots more

                      • LMSC

                        •  
                      • Post #6
                      • Edited

                      Zephyp I find it fascinating and would like to learn more about what makes up the enjoyment, how it tastes and feels.

                      Zephyp Is balance a result of a good extraction

                      Scope for brew malfunction is higher in espresso than filter, IMO. Other things being equal (ex: beans, water, grind size, ratio, puck preparation, etc.), temperature stability is the key in espresso, whereas it is filter paper in brews.

                      For me, a balanced cup is I can enjoy drinking without thinking it is nice, but….

                      I also think our personal bias can influence what is otherwise may be a good or an evently extracted or a balanced coffee. I do avoid adding milk in my coffee. As a result, I am not fan of chocolates, cacao, fudge, caramel as tasting notes.

                            • Zephyp

                              •  
                            • Post #7
                            • Edited

                            Pompeyexile Being a pleb, all I can say is when I drink it I do not want it to give me a face like a Camel sucking a lemon, just a nice satisfying ahhh. As to the properties involved as to how I get there, for me a coffee pleb, I wouldn’t know it if came up and smacked me in the face.

                            But for you real coffee nerds/experts, and I do not mean those terms disparagingly, because I always value your advice. I do not think it is a question that can ever really be answered in full to anyone’s satisfaction. But I will enjoy reading those who wish to try.

                            I am far, far from an expert. Enthusiast is perhaps more appropriate, which says little about level of skill and knowledge.

                            I also want to have enjoyable cups and ideally not care how I got there, but that’s easier said than done. I find coffee pretty finicky, which the amount of equipment available and that many people have in their possession may be evidence of. By people, I include myself, as I got an $800 refractometer sitting in my cupboard.

                            I am hoping to find something that can easily be explained to and understood by any pleb or layman.

                            That it can’t be answered Q.E.D., I have accepted, but that doesn’t mean I won’t stop trying to make sense out of it. As with any kind of food and drink, I always look to improve the results, small steps at the time.

                            MWJB Astringency - 100 barista points for using the current coffee-sphere buzzword! :-) I hate the use of this meaningless, catch-all phrase to describe coffee that ’isn’t quite right’ for some unidentified reason. I’ve seen it used in cuppings and nobody over-extracts cuppings. It’s vague and does not describe a given fault. I wish people would stop using it. In wine speak it relates more to a grainy/powdery/silty quality. To me, in coffee, it specifically describes the drying, smokey, hop like bitterness of over-extraction. This is a distinct & immediately recogniseable type of drying sensation, it is also fairly rare & very easily fixed in 99% of cases by extracting less. Day to day, it’s not a major concern.

                            I never win anything. Huzza! :) I have used it myself for lack of better descriptors, but in very general terms applying to unwanted feelings in the mouth not necessarily related to taste, if that makes any sense. I agree on all points and have made a mental note to never utter it in a coffee related discussion ever again.

                            It’s difficult to get rid of a malfunction or undesirable element if you can’t properly describe it. My perception of sour vs bitter has improved through years of drinking coffee, but in the early days I struggled a lot and had no idea if my extraction was high or low, or if it was somewhere closer to ideal and there were just other elements disturbing the result.

                            MWJB Mouthfeel/silt - All coffee has some, people have differing expectations too…you could call it body, or texture. This is seperate to extraction as solids to not contribute to what is dissolved in your cup. If your coffee has a filmy mouthfeel, grainy feel, you might also feel that the acidity is attenuated and the coffee a little flat? Coarsening the grind, or pushing less water through the bed might fix it, without significantly affecting extraction. This, to me, is the day-to-day concerrn - avoiding under-extracted artefacts in the cup (most common issue), whilst minimising unpleasant/overbearing mouthfeel, associated bitter/charred/pithy flavours & squashed acidity.

                            Excellent insight, thank you. This is the kind of things I was hoping to get out of this topic. If it’s a day-to-day concern, does that mean it is very sensitive to small differences with identical recipe and brew method, such that even when you hit the perfect setting and method, things outside of your control can bump the result in either direction from one day to the next?

                            LMSC Scope for brew malfunction is higher in espresso than filter, IMO. Other things being equal (ex: beans, water, grind size, ratio, puck preparation, etc.), temperature stability is the key in espresso, whereas it is filter paper in brews.

                            For me, a balanced cup is I can enjoy drinking without thinking it is nice, but….

                            I also think our personal bias can influence what is otherwise may be a good or evently extracted or balanced coffee. I do avoid adding milk in my coffee. As a result, I am not fan of chocolates, cacao, fudge, caramel as tasting notes.

                            Yeah, I have avoided getting into espresso partly because there’s more that can go wrong and I don’t need more hobbies.

                            Personal bias and palate is certainly a part of it. Fortunately, I don’t have to make coffee that everyone else loves. It’s enough that I like it myself. On a recent subscription tasting video by Tim Wendelboe on Youtube he mentioned how different parts of the world use different flavor notes or descriptors for the same taste in the coffee, since we are all exposed to different tastes, ingredients and food.

                                      • LMSC

                                        •  
                                      • Post #8
                                      • Edited

                                      Zephyp On a recent subscription tasting video by Tim Wendelboe on Youtube he mentioned how different parts of the world use different flavor notes or descriptors for the same taste in the coffee, since we are all exposed to different tastes, ingredients and food.

                                      A few factors may explain the difference:

                                      1. Roasting profile and roast
                                      2. Palate
                                      3. Perhaps, even personal bias
                                      4. People may not strictly follow the cupping protocol
                                      5. Blind cupping

                                      What I also find not helpful is (apart from some not mentioning the roast), a few lines describing what they thought of the coffee when they cupped / brewed. I think this is more helpful than the notes themselves.

                                      @LeefromFoundryCR and his team nicely describes it. I have seen it in the case of a few roasters. 😊

                                      Edit:

                                      Most of the tasting notes descriptions are anyway reproduced from greens.

                                          Flavour notes are definitely a product of what fruits and foods are readily available and popular in each individuals country. Aramse has a video on james hoffmann’s channel about how flavour notes are very western in nature even if the coffee is grown in other parts of the world. It has also been a problem that a lot of people have mentioned with the SCA flavour wheel (and other flavour wheels) for a while now

                                          Coffee Roaster. Home: Sage Dual Boiler, Niche Zero, Ode v2 (SSP), 1zpresso ZP6 Work: Eagle One Prima EXP, mahlkonig e80s, Mazzer Philos and lots more

                                          LMSC What I also find not helpful is (apart from some not mentioning the roast), a few lines describing what they thought of the coffee when they cupped / brewed. I think this is more helpful than the notes themselves.

                                          @LeefromFoundryCR and his team nicely describes it. I have seen it in the case of a few roasters. 😊

                                          Absolutely. Even if I don’t pick up on the same things myself, I find it interesting to hear more about the coffee from the roaster.

                                          I’ll get in line if Foundry ever ships internationally. :D

                                            Zephyp Excellent insight, thank you. This is the kind of things I was hoping to get out of this topic. If it’s a day-to-day concern, does that mean it is very sensitive to small differences with identical recipe and brew method, such that even when you hit the perfect setting and method, things outside of your control can bump the result in either direction from one day to the next?

                                            Certainly, some coffees seem more prone to silty artefacts. Even if they aren’t, I tend to notice small differences cup to cup. I see it as just a byproduct of making tiny batches, like Pizza by the mouthful? :-) A large French press can be more consistent accross several cups made at once.

                                            Mostly for drip, I don’t make changes from one day to the next (at some point you have to put the navel gazing to one side and do the thing in one, live take), but as I have a couple of grinders, I do have a method for getting a slight difference in grind size, in case one coffee is better represented at a little coarser grind vs one that is OK a shade finer/normal.