Yeah.

"most reproducible" -> Does not mean good.

A lot of generic weak coffee is 'consistent', but not 'good'.

Sorry, maybe I should have quoted the next line as well:

> Pabst echoes that advice: “My recommendation for people at home, without knowing anything they are doing, 90% chance that if you use less coffee and grind a little coarser [your coffee] will actually taste better.”

So it's not just about consistency, but also quality.

	▲	soco 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"taste better" does not mean quality either. What do I know about their tastes, they're scientists not baristas (in the article baristas were only asked about process options). Also they didn't discover anything new, just confirmed what everybody was telling them. And not at least, there are different methods of making coffee, while they smeared their espresso machine results interpretation over everything - like for instance to make Turkish coffee (aka pot) you must grind it the finest and use more.

▲

canes123456 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reproducible is necessary but not sufficient for consistently good coffee. If you can’t reproducible what you did, you aren’t able to make changes to improve over time.

This is why I think the Aiden is underrated. It way more consistent than I was when doing pour over but still lets me tweak variables.

▲

roflyear 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Good is totally up to the person's tastes, anyway. Turbo style shots are the end-all-be-all for a lot of people who enjoy espresso. For other people, they hate it, for a multitude of reasons.

A pet peeve of mine is when people mention "weak" coffee. What does this mean?