So much of "received wisdom" in coffee circles is based on pseudoscience and guesswork. There are some people trying to address that problem and we owe them thanks - in 10 years we'll look back and realise how much they changed the "coffee industry". Thanks for contributing to the discussion by bringing this study to a wider audience.
@@TSE_WOODY sure, that should go without saying. But the science is there to make achieving the desired taste less of a hit or miss affair. That and helping us "home in" on our target taste faster rather than thrashing around in the dark. Science can help us turn making good coffee into a learnable craft rather than a mystical art
@@mccrispy oh yeah, but it’s all gotta work in tandem because you can great numbers, perfect water, perfect tds and extraction % and it still might not be the best tasting cup in your sample.
My first exciting moment in specialty coffee was bringing home a light, unwashed Yirgacheffe from a local roaster to brew with my brand new V60, a cheap gooseneck from Walmart, & a hario skerton grinder. The ratio was way too strong and the horrible skerton had the grind distribution all over the place, but I had this novelty flavor of blueberries in my cup for the first time. As I got better equipment and learned about ratios & good technique, those berry flavors disappeared, though I'd like to revisit them. The average consumer won't be willing to treat coffee like a science project, so I'm sure the corporate roasters spend a great deal of time dialing in a preground coffee to taste right once it's sat on a store shelf for a month then gets brewed through a cheap filter machine
Thank you for shedding light on this interesting study. I think what is interesting is that this is something that people in the tea community or tea connoisseurs do. People in the tea community like play around with the temperature and steeping time to try to get different profiles out of tea. They also like to try different brewing methods such as western, gongfu, grandpa style or even brewing in different types of vessels. There are also many types of production methods and things such as terroir.
I've always thought personal preference matters more than what the chart says. I brew standard drip, Aeropress and French Press. I have a grind size and specific ratio I use for each method. Thanks for bringing this study some attention. More people should be talking about this. ☕️
Love your work! So insightful without the ego... You've been a big influence on my coffee journey over the past two and a half years. Many thanks, Asser! 🙏😊☕️
Really intersting information. Thanks for bringing it out. Just made a little experiment. Brewed 11.5 grams of robusta at that golden ratio of 17.42 just to find out what it would bring. Contrary to popular wisdom and your own recomendation of a 12, 13 grams ratio, it turned out to a very clear and enjoyable coffee cup, although admitedly thin (but no bitterness whatsoever). Just goes to show that we need to experiment more and not blindly follow what some coffee "experts" keep telling us...
Alan Adler's theory is correct. He stated that to achieve the sweetest cup you should brew fast. This slighly 'under extracted' but strong concentrate is the base for a sweet americano (black coffee)
Great job taking what I found to be a very dense academic article and making it more consumable. A few thoughts: The 2019 version of the Coffee Brewing Control chart already removed terms like "bitter," so strange that the article critiqued an older version of the chart that wasn't current. As a frequent judge at Brewing competitions, I can attest to a growing preference group for stronger coffees at lower extractions. For me, however, the classic Gold Cup standards are still my personal preference for a balanced, complex cup of coffee and I'm sad to see Specialty Coffee moving away from it.
Thanks Michael, interesting inputs! Regarding lower extractions, it seems there are fractions moving in both directions when it comes to the Golden Cup; influential people have been pushing extractions north of 22% for some time. There have been some revisions to the coffee brewing control chart over the years, but I haven't been able to track down a definitive list of changes. The latest version seems to have extended the range up to a TDS of 1.45. If you look at Lockhart's oldest version of the chart is calculated in gallons, he seems to favor a ratio of 1:14.5-1:16.5. Curious if you can shed any light on this?
It's very interesting. Because I started coffee drinking with specialty when I was 17 I am accustomed to flavours that most people that follow the golden ratio would think is not even coffee. And infact I found myself sometimes even drawn to shots that others wouldnt even dare to try because they were that far out of the ordinary. We should actually rethink what we see as standard. Thank you so much for the video it was very interesting!
I rarely drink filter coffee but when I do it is v60 and it is a 16.67:1 ratio. Not because I aim for that but because that is 300 grams of water to 18 grams of coffee and that seems to be what I prefer. That is with coffees around the City+ level with the 4:6 method fwiw. That said, I almost always drink a short ratio americano (3:1) with a Full City - Full City+ level. As an aside, when it comes to tasting notes, I don't have the most refined palate, but I like chocolate and berry flavors in both espresso-based drinks and pour over. More chocolate forward in espresso and berry forward in a pour over. A light smokiness is fine in espresso but not pour over. I don't like any apple, grape or citrus like acidity in any coffee. I have trouble tasting sweetness and umami in coffee. Anyway, as always, I enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing with us.
Ratio is a good way to start exploring. The next level is adjusting grind size. But a refractometer is necessary if you want a more objective measurement.
Suppose I started with a 1:15. Assuming it isn't already bad, do you think it would be more beneficial to adjust the grind size for my next brew or ratio?
I would just go to the typical 1:16.6 from there. If the coffee feels like it's lacking something, grind a bit finer. This will move you closer into the center of the old brewing chart, which you may like @@all_systems_failing7235
I knew this chart was full of shit when I got a refractometer and the software had this very chart and would plot your extraction. Mine were always too strong and bitter except I never found them bitter at all and just the perfect strength. Every time I tried to get in the ideal area the coffee just tasted incredibly weak, watery and thin to me. As it turns out, I simply like incredibly high extractions and coffee that a lot of people in the industry would describe as "muddy" with no "flavor separation", and while that might be true that the flavors are more blended, I highly prefer the thick and velvety mouth feel with these blended flavors to the alternative.
Thank you Asser, would you give a quick primer on how to typically manipulate TDS vs extraction? Ie how to achieve high TDS with low extraction and vice versa.
Often higher TDS and lower extraction will follow each other. The more water you push through the grounds, the more they get extracted. But this also means that you'll have more water in the coffee cup. So if you want to increase extraction without getting weaker coffee, you will need to grind finer or use other tricks that push up extraction.
Please explain how to brew differently to try these. With a Clever and with a V60 (Cafec Abaca or their medium/dark papers), and espresso. Up 'til now, I thought TDS was how you measure extraction. What is Strength measuring?
Strength and TDS are the same. When you have this number and relate it to your coffee-to-water ratio, you can get the extraction yield/percentage with a calculator like this (or just by using math). www.espressoschool.com.au/coffee-calculator/ However, you need a refractometer to get accurate TDS measurements.
I always found the original chart to be nonsense the same with the golden cup rules. It has always poorly translated to actual reading and cupping results. The negative descriptors and one dimensional views certainly don’t translate well to how nature science and social science view things the past 20 years. That said I think we need more look into it from actual trained tasters perspective, as the average individual might have a preference towards taste that tricker emotional/chemical response linked to memories/experiences etc. meaning their evaluation about taste is more grounded in our biological rewarding system.
is there such a thing as 'coffee tasting' services? I'd like to try a lot of different types of coffee and see what types I like best. But if everyone just follows the 'golden cup' ratio - I guess all that will do is tell you what bean you like most.
That would be a coffee cupping. You should find a public cupping in your area, many roasters host these. Usually, bean type is the only variable here. But when you have some experience, it's easy as a home-brewer to explore different ratios and grind sizes, and as a result, different zones of the brew chart.
These various brewing studies and prescriptions ignore one of the most important variables in brewing: water characteristics . How seriously can we take this research with such a major uncontrolled variable? A coffee beverage comprises mostly water. It would be more rigorous to - as a baseline - conduct these studies using distilled water, then at least we would achieve some consistency and remove this wild unknown influence
" How seriously can we take this research with such a major uncontrolled variable? " How do you know it's uncontrolled? The abstract makes no mention of the water, so unless you have access to the full paper, you're making an uncontrolled assumption here. Mind you, you're correct that the water matters, but a related question is this: HOW does it matter? And would those differences make ANY difference in THIS study?
Any coffee golden cup metrics that aren't segmenting by taste preference clusters and bean characteristics is just plain pseudoscience bunk. The idea of a single paragon cup of coffee isn't just verifiably wrong, it's antithetical to specialty coffee as a beverage and a seasonal produce of broad terroir.
Finally some re-examining of the basics. There've been one or two recent studies about the effect of TDS and extraction on coffee's sensory attributes, and clearly these are things that individuals can play around with to get the notes they prefer. But I suspect it probably isn't as simple as "TDS and % extraction are the only two variables that affect the final composition and taste perception of the brew" ("so to change extraction, don't change temperature, just grind size" as some experienced people say). What I'd like to see is research on 1) whether brews can taste significantly different at the same TDS and % extraction, and 2) how larger changes in brewing temperature affect the final perceived tastes (e.g. 95C vs 90C vs 85C).
Very informative. Thank you for bringing this to viewers' attention. I normally do 17:1 to 18:1 ratios, but my taste preferences would be in the new chart's NW corner. So, I will try shorter ratios and coarser grinds to try that out.
This morning I had a very good cup of coffee. I had some dark roast oily beans that I didn’t want to use in my superautomatic and I decided to try my brevile precision brewer. Used the 60 most coarse setting on the smart grinder pro and came out very good. Based on the UA-cam reviewers you’re supposed to use only light or medium roasts in drip machine, but this dark oily coffee was delicious.
I’m struggling to understand the application of this haha are you planning a video on how to apply this for home brewing so we can try to achieve these different profiles?
Problem is, normal people don't have any refractometer, nor they bother about it. So yes, customers preferences are divided / segmented & we can't use our preference to different people. roastery should think whose they serve too.
I got an DiFluid R2 recently and the results in the chart vs what I thought were the tastier brews were enlightening. I definitely don’t prefer the higher extractions. This was a very timely video!
Super fedt og tak for gennemgangen! Men halvdelen af det som står på charten er svær at forstå. Ratio er næsten det eneste som en semi entusiast forstår - hvad er TDS og hvordan kan man finde det tal? Derfor, må jeg foreslår at du laver en follow-up, hvor nogle af de her områder kan oversættes til simple opskrifter på v60, aeropress eller lign. Udover ratio, så ville jeg ikke vide hvordan jeg skal tilpasse min v60, hvis jeg vil prøve mere citrus smag af.
Tak Lars. Er godt klar over, at det er en lidt nørdet video. Det kan godt være jeg skal lave en opfølger, der kan forklare lidt nærmere. Evt. kan du starte med det nyeste indlæg på min blog som forklarer indholdet nærmere. TDS er synomym for "styrke". I filterkaffe er den som regel mellem 1.15-1.50 % mens, den ligger mellem omkring 8-12 % for espresso. Dog bliver du nødt til at have specialudstyr for at måle den; et såkaldt refractometer.
I don't know for sure but would guess these numbers are from a total combination of coffee drinkers. Those that drink it black and those that add milk/sugar. I am guessing that the percentage of black drinkers is around 5 percent total, at least in the US. Throwing both sides together into one group is going to really muddy the waters. Maybe I'm wrong here on the drink styles being grouped, but the gold standard extraction is probably more accurate to black drinkers. Those that add anything to their coffee don't really like coffee and are very unpredictable. (See Starbucks)
The current study only focuses on black coffee. Not much is known about the 1957 research, but I'd assume it's the same since they set the strength max target at 1.35. For milk drinkers, I'd definitely aim for a higher TDS.
The problem with the research article, in my opinion, is that it is dealing with 'consumer preference' and the average consumer has sh*t taste. Just look at the success of Starbucks, Keurig, and Nespresso. Everyone I know drinks coffee; most of them use a pod system; and those that grind fresh don't use a scale, lol. Great video and definitely an interesting topic for us coffee nerds.
Most people drink coffee for the caffeine. That doesn't mean they have "sh*t" taste, it means that the taste of the COFFEE is secondary. They'll dress it up with cream, sugar, whatnot, and be satisfied with the caffeine (and sugar) fix.
In my case, being a home roaster helped me become a neophile taster, as it forces you to explore new directions when your roast fails. Interesting article!
I’m an experienced coffee drinker and I absolutely despise the citrus coffee that they’re pushing now. I prefer chocolate and caramel under notes and I trust my own taste buds.
Well, the old scientists who gave us the original 1957 chart were probably not much better. Science needs to be replicable and we know almost nothing about the original research.
So much of "received wisdom" in coffee circles is based on pseudoscience and guesswork. There are some people trying to address that problem and we owe them thanks - in 10 years we'll look back and realise how much they changed the "coffee industry". Thanks for contributing to the discussion by bringing this study to a wider audience.
Agreed. Besides the myths, I'm also very interested in what science can't tell us - I think that deserves more attention.
@@coffeechroniclerTaste is king ultimately
@@TSE_WOODY sure, that should go without saying. But the science is there to make achieving the desired taste less of a hit or miss affair. That and helping us "home in" on our target taste faster rather than thrashing around in the dark. Science can help us turn making good coffee into a learnable craft rather than a mystical art
@@coffeechronicler do you mean "what science can't _currently_ tell us", or "what cannot possibly be described by science"? Do you have examples?
@@mccrispy oh yeah, but it’s all gotta work in tandem because you can great numbers, perfect water, perfect tds and extraction % and it still might not be the best tasting cup in your sample.
More videos like this please! 🖤Just loved this so much.
Thanks Emilee, so glad to hear!
My first exciting moment in specialty coffee was bringing home a light, unwashed Yirgacheffe from a local roaster to brew with my brand new V60, a cheap gooseneck from Walmart, & a hario skerton grinder. The ratio was way too strong and the horrible skerton had the grind distribution all over the place, but I had this novelty flavor of blueberries in my cup for the first time. As I got better equipment and learned about ratios & good technique, those berry flavors disappeared, though I'd like to revisit them. The average consumer won't be willing to treat coffee like a science project, so I'm sure the corporate roasters spend a great deal of time dialing in a preground coffee to taste right once it's sat on a store shelf for a month then gets brewed through a cheap filter machine
*Blog post with TL;DR overview here* 👉coffeechronicler.com/its-time-to-retire-the-golden-cup-standard/
Thank you for shedding light on this interesting study. I think what is interesting is that this is something that people in the tea community or tea connoisseurs do. People in the tea community like play around with the temperature and steeping time to try to get different profiles out of tea. They also like to try different brewing methods such as western, gongfu, grandpa style or even brewing in different types of vessels. There are also many types of production methods and things such as terroir.
The world of tea seems very open and non-scientific. In a good way.
I've always thought personal preference matters more than what the chart says. I brew standard drip, Aeropress and French Press. I have a grind size and specific ratio I use for each method.
Thanks for bringing this study some attention. More people should be talking about this. ☕️
Love your work! So insightful without the ego... You've been a big influence on my coffee journey over the past two and a half years. Many thanks, Asser! 🙏😊☕️
Thanks for the kind words 🙏
Really intersting information. Thanks for bringing it out. Just made a little experiment. Brewed 11.5 grams of robusta at that golden ratio of 17.42 just to find out what it would bring. Contrary to popular wisdom and your own recomendation of a 12, 13 grams ratio, it turned out to a very clear and enjoyable coffee cup, although admitedly thin (but no bitterness whatsoever). Just goes to show that we need to experiment more and not blindly follow what some coffee "experts" keep telling us...
Experimenting is always worthwhile. And yes, golden ratios for robustas and libericas should likewise only be used as starting points
Alan Adler's theory is correct. He stated that to achieve the sweetest cup you should brew fast. This slighly 'under extracted' but strong concentrate is the base for a sweet americano (black coffee)
Interesting information. The tongue is still the best tool for measuring the correct concentration levels.
Great job taking what I found to be a very dense academic article and making it more consumable.
A few thoughts:
The 2019 version of the Coffee Brewing Control chart already removed terms like "bitter," so strange that the article critiqued an older version of the chart that wasn't current.
As a frequent judge at Brewing competitions, I can attest to a growing preference group for stronger coffees at lower extractions.
For me, however, the classic Gold Cup standards are still my personal preference for a balanced, complex cup of coffee and I'm sad to see Specialty Coffee moving away from it.
Thanks Michael, interesting inputs! Regarding lower extractions, it seems there are fractions moving in both directions when it comes to the Golden Cup; influential people have been pushing extractions north of 22% for some time.
There have been some revisions to the coffee brewing control chart over the years, but I haven't been able to track down a definitive list of changes. The latest version seems to have extended the range up to a TDS of 1.45. If you look at Lockhart's oldest version of the chart is calculated in gallons, he seems to favor a ratio of 1:14.5-1:16.5. Curious if you can shed any light on this?
It's very interesting. Because I started coffee drinking with specialty when I was 17 I am accustomed to flavours that most people that follow the golden ratio would think is not even coffee.
And infact I found myself sometimes even drawn to shots that others wouldnt even dare to try because they were that far out of the ordinary. We should actually rethink what we see as standard.
Thank you so much for the video it was very interesting!
I rarely drink filter coffee but when I do it is v60 and it is a 16.67:1 ratio. Not because I aim for that but because that is 300 grams of water to 18 grams of coffee and that seems to be what I prefer. That is with coffees around the City+ level with the 4:6 method fwiw. That said, I almost always drink a short ratio americano (3:1) with a Full City - Full City+ level.
As an aside, when it comes to tasting notes, I don't have the most refined palate, but I like chocolate and berry flavors in both espresso-based drinks and pour over. More chocolate forward in espresso and berry forward in a pour over. A light smokiness is fine in espresso but not pour over. I don't like any apple, grape or citrus like acidity in any coffee.
I have trouble tasting sweetness and umami in coffee.
Anyway, as always, I enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing with us.
What would be the easiest way to explore what's being proposed here? Is it as simple as using the same recipe, but changing the brew ratio?
Ratio is a good way to start exploring. The next level is adjusting grind size. But a refractometer is necessary if you want a more objective measurement.
Suppose I started with a 1:15. Assuming it isn't already bad, do you think it would be more beneficial to adjust the grind size for my next brew or ratio?
I would just go to the typical 1:16.6 from there. If the coffee feels like it's lacking something, grind a bit finer. This will move you closer into the center of the old brewing chart, which you may like @@all_systems_failing7235
@@coffeechronicler Thanks!
I knew this chart was full of shit when I got a refractometer and the software had this very chart and would plot your extraction. Mine were always too strong and bitter except I never found them bitter at all and just the perfect strength.
Every time I tried to get in the ideal area the coffee just tasted incredibly weak, watery and thin to me. As it turns out, I simply like incredibly high extractions and coffee that a lot of people in the industry would describe as "muddy" with no "flavor separation", and while that might be true that the flavors are more blended, I highly prefer the thick and velvety mouth feel with these blended flavors to the alternative.
Yes, it's slightly bizarre to endorse espresso at 8-12 %TDS, but having a problem with drip at 1.40
Thanks for reviewing
Thank you Asser, would you give a quick primer on how to typically manipulate TDS vs extraction? Ie how to achieve high TDS with low extraction and vice versa.
Often higher TDS and lower extraction will follow each other. The more water you push through the grounds, the more they get extracted. But this also means that you'll have more water in the coffee cup. So if you want to increase extraction without getting weaker coffee, you will need to grind finer or use other tricks that push up extraction.
I don't think I know how to read that chart. Probably I don't deserve good coffee....
Excellent video!
great video! thank you.
Please explain how to brew differently to try these. With a Clever and with a V60 (Cafec Abaca or their medium/dark papers), and espresso.
Up 'til now, I thought TDS was how you measure extraction.
What is Strength measuring?
Strength and TDS are the same. When you have this number and relate it to your coffee-to-water ratio, you can get the extraction yield/percentage with a calculator like this (or just by using math).
www.espressoschool.com.au/coffee-calculator/
However, you need a refractometer to get accurate TDS measurements.
Can someone decipher the new chart? Why is it going from 30g to 11g in the opposite way when the previous charts are from 30g to 90g per liter?
The new one shows the brew ratio instead of grams per liter (or pounds per gallon as it was in the original from 1957)
@@coffeechronicler Oh, the man himself! Thank you so much, you do great content. All the best to you!
Thanks for the kind words!@@GHFrankie
So a 15 on the chart is 1g Coffee to 15g water?
And does that mean that 19-30 is likely to 26%+ extracted?
I always found the original chart to be nonsense the same with the golden cup rules. It has always poorly translated to actual reading and cupping results.
The negative descriptors and one dimensional views certainly don’t translate well to how nature science and social science view things the past 20 years.
That said I think we need more look into it from actual trained tasters perspective, as the average individual might have a preference towards taste that tricker emotional/chemical response linked to memories/experiences etc. meaning their evaluation about taste is more grounded in our biological rewarding system.
is there such a thing as 'coffee tasting' services? I'd like to try a lot of different types of coffee and see what types I like best. But if everyone just follows the 'golden cup' ratio - I guess all that will do is tell you what bean you like most.
That would be a coffee cupping. You should find a public cupping in your area, many roasters host these. Usually, bean type is the only variable here. But when you have some experience, it's easy as a home-brewer to explore different ratios and grind sizes, and as a result, different zones of the brew chart.
thank you@@coffeechronicler
science and coffee!?🙄
first time i've heard this combination😁
These various brewing studies and prescriptions ignore one of the most important variables in brewing: water characteristics . How seriously can we take this research with such a major uncontrolled variable? A coffee beverage comprises mostly water.
It would be more rigorous to - as a baseline - conduct these studies using distilled water, then at least we would achieve some consistency and remove this wild unknown influence
" How seriously can we take this research with such a major uncontrolled variable? " How do you know it's uncontrolled? The abstract makes no mention of the water, so unless you have access to the full paper, you're making an uncontrolled assumption here.
Mind you, you're correct that the water matters, but a related question is this: HOW does it matter? And would those differences make ANY difference in THIS study?
Any coffee golden cup metrics that aren't segmenting by taste preference clusters and bean characteristics is just plain pseudoscience bunk. The idea of a single paragon cup of coffee isn't just verifiably wrong, it's antithetical to specialty coffee as a beverage and a seasonal produce of broad terroir.
Damn
You keep saying under-developed when I think you mean to say underextracted, development happens strictly at the roasting level
This is the descriptor consistently used on the chart, also on more recent SCA versions
Finally some re-examining of the basics. There've been one or two recent studies about the effect of TDS and extraction on coffee's sensory attributes, and clearly these are things that individuals can play around with to get the notes they prefer. But I suspect it probably isn't as simple as "TDS and % extraction are the only two variables that affect the final composition and taste perception of the brew" ("so to change extraction, don't change temperature, just grind size" as some experienced people say).
What I'd like to see is research on 1) whether brews can taste significantly different at the same TDS and % extraction, and 2) how larger changes in brewing temperature affect the final perceived tastes (e.g. 95C vs 90C vs 85C).
UC Davis published a study on brew temperature. It's worth reading!
Very informative. Thank you for bringing this to viewers' attention. I normally do 17:1 to 18:1 ratios, but my taste preferences would be in the new chart's NW corner. So, I will try shorter ratios and coarser grinds to try that out.
This morning I had a very good cup of coffee. I had some dark roast oily beans that I didn’t want to use in my superautomatic and I decided to try my brevile precision brewer. Used the 60 most coarse setting on the smart grinder pro and came out very good. Based on the UA-cam reviewers you’re supposed to use only light or medium roasts in drip machine, but this dark oily coffee was delicious.
I’m struggling to understand the application of this haha are you planning a video on how to apply this for home brewing so we can try to achieve these different profiles?
Yes, I can see from the comments that this might be a good idea :)
Problem is, normal people don't have any refractometer, nor they bother about it. So yes, customers preferences are divided / segmented & we can't use our preference to different people. roastery should think whose they serve too.
I got an DiFluid R2 recently and the results in the chart vs what I thought were the tastier brews were enlightening. I definitely don’t prefer the higher extractions. This was a very timely video!
Super fedt og tak for gennemgangen! Men halvdelen af det som står på charten er svær at forstå. Ratio er næsten det eneste som en semi entusiast forstår - hvad er TDS og hvordan kan man finde det tal? Derfor, må jeg foreslår at du laver en follow-up, hvor nogle af de her områder kan oversættes til simple opskrifter på v60, aeropress eller lign.
Udover ratio, så ville jeg ikke vide hvordan jeg skal tilpasse min v60, hvis jeg vil prøve mere citrus smag af.
Tak Lars. Er godt klar over, at det er en lidt nørdet video. Det kan godt være jeg skal lave en opfølger, der kan forklare lidt nærmere. Evt. kan du starte med det nyeste indlæg på min blog som forklarer indholdet nærmere. TDS er synomym for "styrke". I filterkaffe er den som regel mellem 1.15-1.50 % mens, den ligger mellem omkring 8-12 % for espresso. Dog bliver du nødt til at have specialudstyr for at måle den; et såkaldt refractometer.
I don't know for sure but would guess these numbers are from a total combination of coffee drinkers. Those that drink it black and those that add milk/sugar. I am guessing that the percentage of black drinkers is around 5 percent total, at least in the US. Throwing both sides together into one group is going to really muddy the waters. Maybe I'm wrong here on the drink styles being grouped, but the gold standard extraction is probably more accurate to black drinkers. Those that add anything to their coffee don't really like coffee and are very unpredictable. (See Starbucks)
The current study only focuses on black coffee. Not much is known about the 1957 research, but I'd assume it's the same since they set the strength max target at 1.35. For milk drinkers, I'd definitely aim for a higher TDS.
The problem with the research article, in my opinion, is that it is dealing with 'consumer preference' and the average consumer has sh*t taste. Just look at the success of Starbucks, Keurig, and Nespresso. Everyone I know drinks coffee; most of them use a pod system; and those that grind fresh don't use a scale, lol.
Great video and definitely an interesting topic for us coffee nerds.
Most people drink coffee for the caffeine. That doesn't mean they have "sh*t" taste, it means that the taste of the COFFEE is secondary. They'll dress it up with cream, sugar, whatnot, and be satisfied with the caffeine (and sugar) fix.
Diego lobo te amamos ❤
In my case, being a home roaster helped me become a neophile taster, as it forces you to explore new directions when your roast fails. Interesting article!
I’m an experienced coffee drinker and I absolutely despise the citrus coffee that they’re pushing now. I prefer chocolate and caramel under notes and I trust my own taste buds.
No right and wrong, hope the takeaway of this video is that you can brew however you like
I like my coffee to taste like coffee.
Im sorry, but modern scientists are anything but scientists.
Well, the old scientists who gave us the original 1957 chart were probably not much better. Science needs to be replicable and we know almost nothing about the original research.