Small problem in our methodology - though I don't know how important it is. Lance emphasized shaking from height(approx. 1-2 inches above the portafilter) to allow for better distribution and less mounding
I personally find the blind shaker workflow much smoother than WDT. I shake, dump the grounds, give the portafilter a quick shake and tap, tamp and I'm done. Definitely faster than a WDT workflow. I think if you're worried about the bed looking a certain way, I can see it taking longer.. but I find that you don't actually have to do that.. what you DO need to do is just disavow yourself of what you think the bed is supposed to look like.. and just tamp. I haven't experienced any visible channeling since switching to the Blind Shaker (Weber version if it matters).
appreciate the video, but fundamental flaw in your methodology- you didn't dump from a height. I have made abundantly clear this is a necessity for the process. Cheers!
I tested that based on comments from others, and found it didn't make any difference in the results: th-cam.com/video/8iGhlvZEcfI/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/UDx6aKO906s/w-d-xo.html
It has been noted that shaking the grounds redistribute the fines better than WDT which also affect taste, but I honestly don't taste a huge difference there. Equal extraction levels doesn't necessarily mean equal taste, but since you didn't mention it should we assume you couldn't tell a difference either? When you're shaking the beans it tends to flow faster as you mentioned. This lets you grind finer. On my machine it's one tick. Slow feeding the beans is another 1 or 2 adjustments. A high flow basket is another 2-3 adjustments. All these changes we do yield incremental improvements but they aren't nothing. Agreed that shaking isn't as pretty as WDT, but the little clumps and stuff are very soft and don't need to be dealt with. Just roughly level it out with a tap or whatever and tamp like normal. Grinding into a portafilter and tamping is probably fine for 99.9% of people, but people watching these videos are probably the .1%.
I don't really do taste tests for the most part. It's so subjective. I think someone like James Hoffmann can give people much better input than I ever could on that sort of thing. But in my daily use, I definitely couldn't taste any difference. As far as flow, it might let you grind finer, but that presumes that the distribution is even. I believe the best explanation that fits my data is that the shaker cup had uneven distribution, leading to inconsistent flow rates which were a little faster on average due to channeling. I didn't want to call it channeling in the video because I didn't really do any tests on that, so it's just my opinion based on what I saw: lumpy beds prior to tamping, faster and more variable flow rates, squirting shots. That could also be my technique with the shaker cup being inadequate, somehow.
@TechDregs how can you be sure the channeling wasn't due to you needing to grind finer now that it's running faster? I used to WDT after shake as a test, no channeling. Every other shot I removed WDT, no difference at all. So now I don't WDT and haven't for a couple of months. As for the shaker, I don't think the equipment matters at all. Just shake until the grounds looks uniform. Even a normal dosing cup over the portafilter is fine.
my 1zpresso included a catch cup like that. i tried it once and once only. it would have complicated my workflow, along with the problems you mentioned.
Thank you very much for your videos! Even though you said, you wouldn't do any more experiments, I am interested in one: If you put your catch cup in the portafilter and shake that combo, then a little tap, how would that look ant what would the extraction numbers be? I mean you have the cup and the steel surface looks a lot nicer than the sandblasted anodized aluminum:) Theres the ridge which might collect some grounds, but other than that... Might be eorth one try. Stupid question though:with larger objects (granola) a shaking leads to a striation with the biggest particles on the bottom and the smallest on top, so not necessarily to a random distribution. Well in a vertical "drill core" all sizes would be present as in a random distribution. Hmm
I actually did just that in a previous video! th-cam.com/video/M0QuSNROy6M/w-d-xo.html This is a follow up because people suggested the actual blind shaker device might somehow be different. As far as shaking leading to vertical distributions by size, I think if we were just vibrating the coffee, that might happen. But I was actually shaking the whole thing back and forth, so I think the risk of that would be small.
Been late to the party but have you test it again with dumping the ground from height like Lance did in his video, just want to take as much info as possible before i buy one
I haven't finished a formal test (maybe in the next few weeks), but in my ad hoc testing, dropping from height does not change the distributional characteristics. It's still quite uneven.
Not sure what the point of this video is? Are you disputing Lance Hendricks findings? I don’t say this to be offensive but his testing appears to be much more dependable/ legitimate… especially since he’s using the correct product. The biggest thing this video showed to me was that the WW blind shaker is worth the extra $. You throw out words like “subjectively” and “statistically” but this kind of data has already been shown in a much more dependable way to be significant on Lances video (multiple videos now). If you can’t or won’t test in a manner that is comparable to someone else’s finding don’t try to discredit someone else who has put in the work.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. What makes the data in this video inferior, exactly? What makes his test more dependable or legitimate? Just the brand of the shaker? Or do you have sort of methodological critique? I said nothing to discredit Lance. I've pointed out the whole time that I'm doing replication studies, to see if I can verify or confirm what he saw. I can't. You're free to draw your own conclusions on whether or not that's due to methods, setup, or specific equipment involved.
The title of your video is “Blind Shakers Give Higher Extraction…Right?”, and then printed in all caps right on the front of your thumbnail is “NOPE”. That is a direct contradiction to Lance. It’s fine if it doesn’t work for you and I appreciate that you didn’t criticize Lance but you are clearly stating that he is wrong. To do that, imo, you should be at least close to as thorough in your process of coming to that conclusion as he was in coming to his. From what I could tell you were not. It may not matter that you used a different brand but it could also be THE difference. At least one of the critiques that you had about your shaker is something WW specifically advertises a solution for in their product. So I don’t particularly think that your video is a fair challenge to Lances findings or a fair critique of the true Blind Shaker. There is value in hearing other people’s experiences, and maybe you’re right in your findings. I just don’t think you proved enough to make that claim. Also, as a side note, I realize the end of my last comment was a little inflammatory. I could have started my opinion more graciously. I apologize for that and I respect you for not responding to that in like kind.
The thumbnail says that because that's the conclusion of the data from my test. I test a blind shaker vs WDT and find no difference. Honestly, I would need to see something pretty substantial at this point to convince me that the Weber version does anything differently, as there are people online seeing retention problems with those also (unless you're referring to some other criticism I had of the shaker cup). What does the Weber do differently? I don't know if anyone else has even put the claim to a test, really. Barista Hustle did a test, but their sample size is tiny (and they find no statistical difference). So, right now, the evidence that blind shakers are more effective seems to only be coming from Lance's tests? Or are there other tests I'm aware of? I don't wish to start any drama, but I was definitely looking to bring something to the conversation. I have no issue with Lance or his test. Again, I'm just trying to give a separate look at the question, and offer my data so that anyone else can see for themselves and make up their mind.
@@TechDregs "What does the Weber do differently?" The clanking when you shake it seems like a pretty big difference. I have a Craig Lyn tumbler so I can't really vouch for the shaker, but the one you bought seems crappy. That said, I only use mine because I have a Pietro grinder and the catcher sucks, so the tumbler works well as a transfer tool. It leaves a mound too. I just tap the portafilter and level it out with my tamper. Which is honestly the only distribution tool I believe is necessary. Just level it, tamp as hard as possible and enjoy consistent shots. All of the distribution tools are just toys, but toys are fun to play with. The tumbler looks cool and rings like a bell. That's fun and cool.
i think lance grinds much coarser, so that might have something to do with the "sticky coffee" but chances are the weber one is finished extremely well so it's just slippier i feel like if you've polished things you know how much work it is to do that lol
Mine took forever to arrive as well. I had to order several before I finally got one 🤣 The version I received is actually quite good with retention. I don’t see any visible grounds remaining. Although I would also assume the Weber version is better quality, I can’t imagine that it would affect the functionality. The differences in quality must come down to the finishing. But again, I can’t see how that would affect the functionality in anyway. That’s just mylayman‘s assessment.
Yeah, I've seen some other people say that. I didn't find a statistically significant difference in flow rates, but the shaker was a little faster on average. Obviously, I'd need a larger sample to see if that was just random chance or not. Taking it for granted that they really consistently run faster shots: I think I would need convincing that the faster shots would be best described by "better distribution" and not "uneven distribution with irregular channels". Because otherwise, I think perhaps people *have* to grind finer to overcome the blind shaker's problems... and it's more a compromise rather than a benefit.
Well, thank you! The Weber is back in stock. I bought it, wondering whether I was wasting my money because I could buy a cheap knock off that would be just as good. I think you have put my mind at rest. -Toby
Your better of buying a quality precision basket or adjusting your temperature to get a bigger taste difference. The only plausible reaosn why blind shaking changes the taste is you are air rating the freshly ground coffee to help it oxidise more quickly which changes the taste. Its similar to the process that people go through when they open a bottle of red wine they let it sit for 10min so the air can make it taste a lot smoother or they use one of the pour through air raters to speed up the process.
That's the most plausible explikation I've seen. It would explain why Lance could taste the difference in his test, and I would asume he uses very fresh beans. Very newly roasted beans taste like shit, I do my own roasting and I'm always disapointed when I first start using a new batch only to really enjoy it when its almost used up, because I start using them to soon.
Nice video, lots of great info! Im waiting for my shaker to arrive from China. I bought it for 18 Euros (roughly 20 USD) from Aliexpress (Which is a far better source of coffee equipment than Amazon, i dont know why people still bother with Amazon TBH). Im also curious to see how it works out. Im not so much interested in the extraction as in reducing the steps involved to dial in a shot. So theoretically, if all goes well i'll stop using a WDT, a dose ring and a leveller while getting the same results (or better as Lance Hendrinck's videos show).
Small problem in our methodology - though I don't know how important it is. Lance emphasized shaking from height(approx. 1-2 inches above the portafilter) to allow for better distribution and less mounding
I could see that helping. I was worried more about losing grounds off the side of the basket, thus throwing off the dose consistency.
Shaking or releasing of height?
also should try with very light roasted coffee. yours are dark and it has more fines
I personally find the blind shaker workflow much smoother than WDT.
I shake, dump the grounds, give the portafilter a quick shake and tap, tamp and I'm done. Definitely faster than a WDT workflow.
I think if you're worried about the bed looking a certain way, I can see it taking longer.. but I find that you don't actually have to do that.. what you DO need to do is just disavow yourself of what you think the bed is supposed to look like.. and just tamp. I haven't experienced any visible channeling since switching to the Blind Shaker (Weber version if it matters).
appreciate the video, but fundamental flaw in your methodology- you didn't dump from a height. I have made abundantly clear this is a necessity for the process. Cheers!
I tested that based on comments from others, and found it didn't make any difference in the results: th-cam.com/video/8iGhlvZEcfI/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/UDx6aKO906s/w-d-xo.html
If you aren’t spraying your beans before you grind then they’ll have more static causing more retention in the shaker
It has been noted that shaking the grounds redistribute the fines better than WDT which also affect taste, but I honestly don't taste a huge difference there. Equal extraction levels doesn't necessarily mean equal taste, but since you didn't mention it should we assume you couldn't tell a difference either?
When you're shaking the beans it tends to flow faster as you mentioned. This lets you grind finer. On my machine it's one tick. Slow feeding the beans is another 1 or 2 adjustments. A high flow basket is another 2-3 adjustments. All these changes we do yield incremental improvements but they aren't nothing.
Agreed that shaking isn't as pretty as WDT, but the little clumps and stuff are very soft and don't need to be dealt with. Just roughly level it out with a tap or whatever and tamp like normal.
Grinding into a portafilter and tamping is probably fine for 99.9% of people, but people watching these videos are probably the .1%.
I don't really do taste tests for the most part. It's so subjective. I think someone like James Hoffmann can give people much better input than I ever could on that sort of thing. But in my daily use, I definitely couldn't taste any difference.
As far as flow, it might let you grind finer, but that presumes that the distribution is even. I believe the best explanation that fits my data is that the shaker cup had uneven distribution, leading to inconsistent flow rates which were a little faster on average due to channeling. I didn't want to call it channeling in the video because I didn't really do any tests on that, so it's just my opinion based on what I saw: lumpy beds prior to tamping, faster and more variable flow rates, squirting shots. That could also be my technique with the shaker cup being inadequate, somehow.
@TechDregs how can you be sure the channeling wasn't due to you needing to grind finer now that it's running faster? I used to WDT after shake as a test, no channeling. Every other shot I removed WDT, no difference at all. So now I don't WDT and haven't for a couple of months.
As for the shaker, I don't think the equipment matters at all. Just shake until the grounds looks uniform. Even a normal dosing cup over the portafilter is fine.
Oh, I wouldn't say I have any proof or anything. It's just my theory based on what I saw.
my 1zpresso included a catch cup like that. i tried it once and once only. it would have complicated my workflow, along with the problems you mentioned.
Thank you very much for your videos!
Even though you said, you wouldn't do any more experiments, I am interested in one:
If you put your catch cup in the portafilter and shake that combo, then a little tap, how would that look ant what would the extraction numbers be?
I mean you have the cup and the steel surface looks a lot nicer than the sandblasted anodized aluminum:)
Theres the ridge which might collect some grounds, but other than that...
Might be eorth one try.
Stupid question though:with larger objects (granola) a shaking leads to a striation with the biggest particles on the bottom and the smallest on top, so not necessarily to a random distribution.
Well in a vertical "drill core" all sizes would be present as in a random distribution. Hmm
I actually did just that in a previous video! th-cam.com/video/M0QuSNROy6M/w-d-xo.html
This is a follow up because people suggested the actual blind shaker device might somehow be different.
As far as shaking leading to vertical distributions by size, I think if we were just vibrating the coffee, that might happen. But I was actually shaking the whole thing back and forth, so I think the risk of that would be small.
Been late to the party but have you test it again with dumping the ground from height like Lance did in his video, just want to take as much info as possible before i buy one
I haven't finished a formal test (maybe in the next few weeks), but in my ad hoc testing, dropping from height does not change the distributional characteristics. It's still quite uneven.
Not sure what the point of this video is? Are you disputing Lance Hendricks findings? I don’t say this to be offensive but his testing appears to be much more dependable/ legitimate… especially since he’s using the correct product. The biggest thing this video showed to me was that the WW blind shaker is worth the extra $. You throw out words like “subjectively” and “statistically” but this kind of data has already been shown in a much more dependable way to be significant on Lances video (multiple videos now). If you can’t or won’t test in a manner that is comparable to someone else’s finding don’t try to discredit someone else who has put in the work.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. What makes the data in this video inferior, exactly? What makes his test more dependable or legitimate? Just the brand of the shaker? Or do you have sort of methodological critique?
I said nothing to discredit Lance. I've pointed out the whole time that I'm doing replication studies, to see if I can verify or confirm what he saw. I can't. You're free to draw your own conclusions on whether or not that's due to methods, setup, or specific equipment involved.
The title of your video is “Blind Shakers Give Higher Extraction…Right?”, and then printed in all caps right on the front of your thumbnail is “NOPE”. That is a direct contradiction to Lance. It’s fine if it doesn’t work for you and I appreciate that you didn’t criticize Lance but you are clearly stating that he is wrong. To do that, imo, you should be at least close to as thorough in your process of coming to that conclusion as he was in coming to his. From what I could tell you were not.
It may not matter that you used a different brand but it could also be THE difference. At least one of the critiques that you had about your shaker is something WW specifically advertises a solution for in their product.
So I don’t particularly think that your video is a fair challenge to Lances findings or a fair critique of the true Blind Shaker. There is value in hearing other people’s experiences, and maybe you’re right in your findings. I just don’t think you proved enough to make that claim.
Also, as a side note, I realize the end of my last comment was a little inflammatory. I could have started my opinion more graciously. I apologize for that and I respect you for not responding to that in like kind.
The thumbnail says that because that's the conclusion of the data from my test. I test a blind shaker vs WDT and find no difference. Honestly, I would need to see something pretty substantial at this point to convince me that the Weber version does anything differently, as there are people online seeing retention problems with those also (unless you're referring to some other criticism I had of the shaker cup). What does the Weber do differently?
I don't know if anyone else has even put the claim to a test, really. Barista Hustle did a test, but their sample size is tiny (and they find no statistical difference). So, right now, the evidence that blind shakers are more effective seems to only be coming from Lance's tests? Or are there other tests I'm aware of?
I don't wish to start any drama, but I was definitely looking to bring something to the conversation. I have no issue with Lance or his test. Again, I'm just trying to give a separate look at the question, and offer my data so that anyone else can see for themselves and make up their mind.
@@TechDregs "What does the Weber do differently?" The clanking when you shake it seems like a pretty big difference. I have a Craig Lyn tumbler so I can't really vouch for the shaker, but the one you bought seems crappy.
That said, I only use mine because I have a Pietro grinder and the catcher sucks, so the tumbler works well as a transfer tool. It leaves a mound too. I just tap the portafilter and level it out with my tamper. Which is honestly the only distribution tool I believe is necessary. Just level it, tamp as hard as possible and enjoy consistent shots. All of the distribution tools are just toys, but toys are fun to play with. The tumbler looks cool and rings like a bell. That's fun and cool.
@@TechDregs you did it in your hand and then complained it wasnt level. use the counter or a tamping station for consisten results for testing
i think lance grinds much coarser, so that might have something to do with the "sticky coffee"
but chances are the weber one is finished extremely well so it's just slippier
i feel like if you've polished things you know how much work it is to do that lol
also he has amazing grinders so less fines
Mine took forever to arrive as well. I had to order several before I finally got one 🤣
The version I received is actually quite good with retention. I don’t see any visible grounds remaining.
Although I would also assume the Weber version is better quality, I can’t imagine that it would affect the functionality. The differences in quality must come down to the finishing. But again, I can’t see how that would affect the functionality in anyway. That’s just mylayman‘s assessment.
it needs space . when u transfer the grounds in the portafilter do it from a 5-7 cm height :)
I think the idea is that the extraction runs faster with the shaker so you can get away with a finer grind which in turn increases the TDS.
Yeah, I've seen some other people say that. I didn't find a statistically significant difference in flow rates, but the shaker was a little faster on average. Obviously, I'd need a larger sample to see if that was just random chance or not.
Taking it for granted that they really consistently run faster shots: I think I would need convincing that the faster shots would be best described by "better distribution" and not "uneven distribution with irregular channels". Because otherwise, I think perhaps people *have* to grind finer to overcome the blind shaker's problems... and it's more a compromise rather than a benefit.
Well, thank you! The Weber is back in stock. I bought it, wondering whether I was wasting my money because I could buy a cheap knock off that would be just as good. I think you have put my mind at rest. -Toby
They only show up for pre-order for me still.
Your better of buying a quality precision basket or adjusting your temperature to get a bigger taste difference. The only plausible reaosn why blind shaking changes the taste is you are air rating the freshly ground coffee to help it oxidise more quickly which changes the taste. Its similar to the process that people go through when they open a bottle of red wine they let it sit for 10min so the air can make it taste a lot smoother or they use one of the pour through air raters to speed up the process.
That's the most plausible explikation I've seen. It would explain why Lance could taste the difference in his test, and I would asume he uses very fresh beans. Very newly roasted beans taste like shit, I do my own roasting and I'm always disapointed when I first start using a new batch only to really enjoy it when its almost used up, because I start using them to soon.
i think better grinders would have less retention due to less fines
Nice video, lots of great info! Im waiting for my shaker to arrive from China. I bought it for 18 Euros (roughly 20 USD) from Aliexpress (Which is a far better source of coffee equipment than Amazon, i dont know why people still bother with Amazon TBH). Im also curious to see how it works out. Im not so much interested in the extraction as in reducing the steps involved to dial in a shot. So theoretically, if all goes well i'll stop using a WDT, a dose ring and a leveller while getting the same results (or better as Lance Hendrinck's videos show).
There’s a gazillion on Amazon that arrive tomorrow
Cuz your one is not Weber 😂
Tried it. No difference. th-cam.com/video/UDx6aKO906s/w-d-xo.html