The Versi was too sensitive during brewing, however, and the weight read out would fluctuate during pours. It was nearly as accurate as the Acaia scales weighing coffee, had quick response times, and had a great form factor. Escali Versi Coffee Scale: The Escali Versi was almost the runner-up.KitchenTour Coffee Scale: The slowest, most inaccurate, and cheapest scale of the bunch, the KitchenTour scale just didn’t match the quality of the other scales.It was also slow to read, and less accurate than most. With bonus ratio functions, a coffee mode and pouring mode, and unresponsive buttons, it was nearly impossible to use out of the box for simple weight and timer functions. Brewista Ratio Scale: The Brewista scale was a headache to use.It also didn’t even register any weight during the 10 bean test, calling into question its overall sensitivity levels. Hario V60 Scale: With a microscopic display and no backlighting, the Hario V60 scale was the hardest to read.Timemore Black Mirror: The Timemore Black Mirror performed admirably in accuracy and responsiveness testing, but the smaller display combined with a cheaper overall feel kept it from being competitive.This is a pro-level scale, and would likely be more appreciated by a coffee professional. The Pearl S also features Brewguide programming that walks you through custom recipes step by step, but this was a little too confusing. Ultimately, though, the higher price point and lack of flow meter on the display made it less appealing than the standard Pearl. It was the only scale that registered a single coffee bean, and the 3000-gram capacity made it stand out next to the Acaia Pearl. Acaia Pearl S: Hands down, the Acaia Pearl S was the most impressive scale for accuracy and responsiveness.Serious Eats / Jesse Raub The Competition This test showed that none of these scales were up to the task for extremely lightweight readings, but I’m not sure many people are trying to weigh a single feather (or in this case, coffee bean) in their kitchen, either. 2 grams is a low enough weight that it’s within the scale’s margin of error, it’s hard to say. Whether that means that the bulk of these scales just weren’t sensitive enough to read. When the coffee bean was removed, the scale would then read -.2 grams, showing that the scale had compensated for the light weight by re-zeroing its platform. This was tested both with a zeroed out platform and a tared ramekin in order to test responsiveness with added weight, but the only clue as to what might be happening showed up on the Acaia Pearl S: with the Pearl S, the scale would quickly flash to. The Lunar is designed for accuracy (particularly when making espresso) with a smaller weight capacity and a highly responsive platform, but I didn’t expect to see that none of the other scales could even register a single coffee bean being placed onto their platforms. Our control scale was an Acaia Lunar that had been calibrated with a 100-gram scientific weight and easily displayed that both a single coffee bean from Peru and a single coffee bean from Burundi weighed. In our first accuracy test, I placed a single coffee bean onto each scale. While all of the scales struggled to note the weight of a single coffee bean, we don't really think this would be a common usage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |