• Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Just as good is subjective, the question is, is there a noticeable difference? If there is, that difference could mean everything to serious coffee snobs.

    • just2look@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      According to the article this is aimed at the commercial/industrial level brewers to save energy. So the coffee snobs probably aren’t really going to be a target audience. Though if it becomes at all widespread I’m sure people will give it a try. There aren’t a shortage of people trying all sorts of wild ways to brew out there.

      • Draconic NEO@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Ah so I take it this is likely a replacement for the current process they use to make instant coffee. Which I know is usually brewed in industrial sized percolators. If that’s the case I definitely think it would improve the favor.

    • chgxvjh [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’ve tried it at home and it was neither especially fast nor good. Cool brew is better. It really didn’t have much to do with espresso. Maybe my setup sucked. Maybe I should try again, has been a while.

      You get a lot more suspended particles rather than a clean extract which isn’t super appealing.

      I don’t have this thing at home, just some submergible ultrasonic thing from AliExpress. massive ultrasonic schlong submerged in a beaker with coffee