What the Espresso Revolution Can Teach Audiophiles

[Nicoff]

What the Espresso Revolution Can Teach Audiophiles

I have been making espresso at home for over 25 years. During that time, the hobby has changed considerably.

Early on, many home baristas (myself included) made espresso by filling the basket, tamping, and pulling the shot until it looked right. Today, many weigh every dose, measure yield ratios, control water chemistry, use distribution techniques, profile pressure and flow, and discuss extraction percentages. Espresso has become far more measurable and reproducible without losing its artisanal appeal.

This got me wondering: Is high-end audio going through a similar evolution, or is it choosing a different path?

Both hobbies began with practitioners relying heavily on intuition. Old-school baristas often said, “You know a good shot when you see it.” Old-school audiophiles often said, “Trust your ears.” In both cases, success depended largely on experience and personal judgment.

Today, espresso making has embraced a more measurement-oriented approach:

• Scales are commonplace.
• Precision grinders have improved dramatically.
• Scientific understanding of extraction has expanded.

Similarly, in audio:

• Affordable measurement microphones have become widely available.
• Software such as REW is accessible to virtually anyone.
• DSP and room correction have become increasingly sophisticated.
• Speaker measurements are more comprehensive than ever.

Suddenly, enthusiasts can quantify things that once seemed mysterious.

What I find interesting is that the two communities appear to have responded differently to this shift.

The coffee community largely embraced measurement and repeatability. Even very traditional specialty coffee shops routinely use scales, timers, and carefully measured recipes.

In audio, the community remains more divided. Many audiophiles enthusiastically embrace measurements, room correction, and DSP. Others continue to view listening impressions as the primary source of truth and remain skeptical that measurements can fully improve musical enjoyment.

The coffee world seems to have settled on a practical compromise: measurements are useful for achieving consistency, but taste remains the final judge.

Perhaps the same principle applies to audio. Measurements can help us establish a reliable baseline and identify obvious problems, while listening ultimately determines what we enjoy.

The lesson from espresso may be that science and enjoyment are not enemies. Measurement does not replace taste; it helps us arrive at the sound—or the espresso—we prefer more reliably.

What do you think? Is audio following the same path that espresso did, or are these two hobbies fundamentally different?

 

[pinger]

Pretty much different . Espressos can taste much different from each other. Audio components sound essentially the same except for speakers

 

[Mort]

Espresso is orders of magnitude more complex than audio reproduction. The inputs change with each pull.

Not remotely close.

 

[Nicoff]

That's a fair point, and I wasn't trying to suggest that the magnitude of the differences is the same in both hobbies.

My point was more about the evolution of the process than the size of the effect.

In espresso, many variables that were once adjusted by intuition—dose, grind size, yield, water chemistry, extraction—became measurable and repeatable. The hobby largely embraced that.

In audio, we have seen something similar with room measurements, speaker measurements, DSP, REW, and other tools that allow us to quantify aspects of playback that were once difficult to assess.

Whether audio components sound very different, slightly different, or essentially the same is almost a separate discussion. What I find interesting is how each community has responded to the growing availability of measurement and data.

In other words, the analogy is less about coffee beans versus amplifiers and more about intuition versus repeatability.

 

[Ralph_Cramden]

Those of us without OCD are perfectly content with our bean-to-cup machines that provide very consistent coffee every morning, lol.

 

[hvbias]

The coffee world seems to have settled on a practical compromise: measurements are useful for achieving consistency, but taste remains the final judge.

That is where I am at with audio (replace taste with hearing the product).

I do love high quality light roast pour over! I never got into espresso because of the smaller quantity of coffee and I enjoy savoring larger cups. And as much as I like a good cappuccino or latte, to me the differences in coffees is larger with pour over when you aren't getting so strong of a milk/milk alternative flavor.

 

[NTK]

I don't know. May be expresso hasn't gone through all the stages that audio had. In the early days (1960's & early 70's) audio was heavily science based and informed (but limited by the understanding of psychoacoustics and other scientific knowledge they had at the time). And then certain people found out that there was good money to be made by discrediting science.

May be one day some people could be convinced that a power conditioner or special power cords for the coffee marker are necessities?

 

[Mort]

There isn't any base research in espresso like we have with Toole et. al.

 

[Luvchampagne]

That's a fair point, and I wasn't trying to suggest that the magnitude of the differences is the same in both hobbies.

My point was more about the evolution of the process than the size of the effect.

In espresso, many variables that were once adjusted by intuition—dose, grind size, yield, water chemistry, extraction—became measurable and repeatable. The hobby largely embraced that.

In audio, we have seen something similar with room measurements, speaker measurements, DSP, REW, and other tools that allow us to quantify aspects of playback that were once difficult to assess.

Whether audio components sound very different, slightly different, or essentially the same is almost a separate discussion. What I find interesting is how each community has responded to the growing availability of measurement and data.

In other words, the analogy is less about coffee beans versus amplifiers and more about intuition versus repeatability.

I very much enjoy my coffee but am not a barista. I keep it to grinding, measuring and then let my Technivorm take over with partial intervention for longer soaks through the brewing process.
Unlike hifi enthusiasts, there's little emotion time and money invested in this. Nostalgia does not color my impression of the coffee. I'm pretty sure most baristas don't long for the electric percolated Yuban coffee from their grandmother's home.
I don't wonder if my filtered water magically tastes different from one morning to another. I don't wonder if the same Melitta brown paper filter is different one morning to another. The snake oil industry that is alive and well in hifi does not have much presence in the making of coffee other than maybe some supposedly magic coffee beans that seem to appear every so often. Paying $70 for a cup of Geisha coffee is quite easy to turn down.
Many of those above factors are alive and well in hifi. Measurements shatter their myth. All that money, time and energy shown to be much different than reality. That is genuinely painful so I understand the resistance.

 

[RedVikingHood]

The home espresso market has succumbed to utter bullpoop similar to some of the poop we find in the hifi world. It's all about trying to sell you extras that you don't need under the false pretence that there will be an improvement. And placebo and expectation bias fool enough people.

The home barista rituals are hilarious. The number of gadgets peole now have that add to the workflow is quite something. Of course they could just get the basics right. For example, dose the basket by volume rather than weight. It's amazing how many people don't do it yet have spent $$$$ on equipment.

-=insert your favourite facepalm image here=-

 

[Multicore]

 

[Keith_W]

Hey! Where is @antcollinet? Look at what they are doing, trying to invent another analogy for audio! As if car analogies weren't bad enough!

 

[MAB]

What the Espresso Revolution Can Teach Audiophiles

I have been making espresso at home for over 25 years. During that time, the hobby has changed considerably.

Early on, many home baristas (myself included) made espresso by filling the basket, tamping, and pulling the shot until it looked right. Today, many weigh every dose, measure yield ratios, control water chemistry, use distribution techniques, profile pressure and flow, and discuss extraction percentages. Espresso has become far more measurable and reproducible without losing its artisanal appeal.

This got me wondering: Is high-end audio going through a similar evolution, or is it choosing a different path?

Both hobbies began with practitioners relying heavily on intuition. Old-school baristas often said, “You know a good shot when you see it.” Old-school audiophiles often said, “Trust your ears.” In both cases, success depended largely on experience and personal judgment.

Today, espresso making has embraced a more measurement-oriented approach:

• Scales are commonplace.
• Precision grinders have improved dramatically.
• Scientific understanding of extraction has expanded.

Similarly, in audio:

• Affordable measurement microphones have become widely available.
• Software such as REW is accessible to virtually anyone.
• DSP and room correction have become increasingly sophisticated.
• Speaker measurements are more comprehensive than ever.

Suddenly, enthusiasts can quantify things that once seemed mysterious.

What I find interesting is that the two communities appear to have responded differently to this shift.

The coffee community largely embraced measurement and repeatability. Even very traditional specialty coffee shops routinely use scales, timers, and carefully measured recipes.

In audio, the community remains more divided. Many audiophiles enthusiastically embrace measurements, room correction, and DSP. Others continue to view listening impressions as the primary source of truth and remain skeptical that measurements can fully improve musical enjoyment.

The coffee world seems to have settled on a practical compromise: measurements are useful for achieving consistency, but taste remains the final judge.

Perhaps the same principle applies to audio. Measurements can help us establish a reliable baseline and identify obvious problems, while listening ultimately determines what we enjoy.

The lesson from espresso may be that science and enjoyment are not enemies. Measurement does not replace taste; it helps us arrive at the sound—or the espresso—we prefer more reliably.

What do you think? Is audio following the same path that espresso did, or are these two hobbies fundamentally different?

Have they blind tested the result?

I do see people getting fanatic about coffee at home. I love coffee, and primarily make it at home. I have friends who roast beans.
I don't see people verifying that they can actually taste the differences between (for example) different brands of Burr grinders.
I see many coffee contraptions that I wonder about the benefit. I have bought several nice coffee devices that have quirks, for example a high-end drip machine that routinely overflowed - many people experienced the same with that model, and made lots of excuses for online , like using a scraper ensure no make sure the carafe was on perfectly flat surface. Our countertops are really flat, people with tile countertops seemed to have zero luck with the machine. I see audiophiles doing the same...

So yes, I see lots of parallels. It's a great hobby that can be incredibly rewarding. The lack of objective tests of the results, the SINAD chasing, that promotion of overpriced and marginally functional devices to be sold that make basic coffee making a bit more difficult... All of it feels familiar.

I absolutely love it, although I admit I don't spend too much time anymore on coffee forums, so maybe there are some properly controlled trials to discern differences.

 

[EERecordist]

Good topic. Across the world people listen to music, often reproduced electronically. I would suggest that listeners, and audiophiles - a small segment of listeners, can be segmented, and ultimately into a segment of a single individual. Same would apply to the professional audio world. I'm very curious given the expense of exhibiting at high end audio shows what the annual unit volume of a high end brand is.

I worked in quality research for a large semiconductor maker. But I would say that the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has influenced me greatly. The narrative part of the book is true, the university professor took a cross country road trip with his son. Sadly the son was murdered later in life by a stranger outside the SF Zen Center.

The book proposes that objective and subjective quality cannot exist without the other.

Other influences are Edwards Deming, I met, Quality is Free, The Toyota Way, and six sigma.

So I would say some listeners value measurements and some deny them.

 

[MAB]

Hey! Where is @antcollinet? Look at what they are doing, trying to invent another analogy for audio! As if car analogies weren't bad enough!

Haha! And agree!

I think there are similarities in approach, but in use as analogy not. Taste is another subjective response that requires similar methods as used for evaluating audio. For example, the results of the Coke vs. Pepsi challenge are much different when tested with proper controls instead of sighted and uncontrolled tests.

 

[Snarfie]

The combination creates for me a synergetic experience, it lift up the smell, taste, mood, sound.

 

[antcollinet]

In espresso, many variables that were once adjusted by intuition

Still are by me. I pull espresso by the seat of my pants. (if that doesn't sound too vulgar )

I see no relation to audio at all, except that for both it is the input that is most important. Music/Beans. After that, it is mostly just bullshit.

Hey! Where is @antcollinet? Look at what they are doing, trying to invent another analogy for audio! As if car analogies weren't bad enough!

There ya go.

 

[DY2]

I don't even know if I'm more crazy about music or coffee, but I have several devices from both camps.
I think it was less work for coffee, until I reached an optimal repetitive result. On the other hand, for music, I always buy another device and start testing.
The idea is that in the end, this is what the result looks like in the pictures, from both camps...

 

[sqrl]

I like coffee to taste a bit different every day. I may have been known ... ahem ... to have several different masterings/pressings/formats of a few of my favourite albums, but then I tend to keep playing the one I like best.

 

[CD2]

Bread-making has had a similar shift in the last couple decades. Everyone serious now measures ingredients by weight, arithmetical ratios are widely understood, and people with technical expertise get listened to. People will still sometimes say "grandma didn't need any of this," but it's not like there's a grudge-nursing subjectivist camp or an objectivist Taliban.

In the case of baking the key parameters of weight, time, and temp are relatively cheap to measure, and that lets you have rich conversations with people at a distance.