# Espresso / Filter Roast Profile vs. 'Omni-roasting'



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

*Split from the 'November LSOL - Workshop Coffee Co' thread - risky*

It will... No such thing as a roast profile for spro or filter. Well... To a degree.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

I think roasting to water is more useful than to a brew method. New thread alert, lol


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

I would've though a bean would be roast to best suit it's character, the brew method should compliment the bean.


----------



## Gerrard Burrard (May 7, 2014)

I'll be brewing exclusively so I hope it works well. Workshop clearly know how to roast for espresso (Cult of Done) but I wouldn't dream of trying to use that for a brew.


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

Here here nick


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

Maxwell Colonna Dashwood mentioned, when I was at C&S earlier in the year, he thinks you should roast specifically for espresso or brewed otherwise he can taste a compromise (or similar). I said I didn't feel that I know enough to have an opinion, which is still the case but I'm very happy to try it as both to find out what I think on this one


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

At the sage suggestion of Mr. **** I've moved the bulk of the roast profile discussion here.

Interesting topic to discuss. I have a few bags from The Barn in the cupboard who are very much proponents of the omni-roast.


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

Good call, although I think my comment above probably belongs on the LSOL thread if I was being picky.


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

NickdeBug said:


> Good call, although I think my comment above probably belongs on the LSOL thread if I was being picky.


And as if by magic, it has returned there


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

I think the idea of roasting something to taste better in certain brew methods relates to a fallacy of neglecting duties as a coffee geek; namely accepting subjectivities role in tasting.


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

So to check my understanding; you think people shouldn't roast for specifically either filter or espresso because tasting is subjective?

Unless I've misunderstood you surely you'd only ever have the subjective opinion of those people you have tasting it, regardless of roast aim?

Is it also possible they're roasting for different solubility or other factors that are considered better for one or other outside of taste (I don't know much about roasting, genuine pondering)? Need to read it again but this made me consider that http://www.assemblycoffee.co.uk/what/


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

Rhys said:


> I would've though a bean would be roast to best suit it's character, the brew method should compliment the bean.


I agree with the sentiment above...In an ideal world



> Maxwell Colonna Dashwood mentioned, when I was at C&S earlier in the year, he thinks you should roast specifically for espresso or brewed otherwise he can taste a compromise (or similar). I said I didn't feel that I know enough to have an opinion, which is still the case but I'm very happy to try it as both to find out what I think on this one


I think Maxwell is completely wrong on this.

My personal experience has been that some coffees suite some prep methods better than others, but to roast them to "fit" a particular method better, is not a good practice..You want to try and bring out what that bean has to offer, otherwise why bother buying different coffees. There are certain coffees I don't roast very often, because they suit preparation methods I generally don't use. Of course roasters are there to make a profit, they have to live after all. So they will try and produce roasts that "hit the spot" for the customer base that maximises sales. This is usually a broader customer base. Roasters want their coffee to have a wide appeal and work in a variety of situations. Hence some produce an "espresso roast" of a particular bean as opposed to a "non espresso" roast, most try and produce an "omni roast". The luxury people like Maxwell have is, speaking at a presentation, commercial roasters have a living to make. This means there are lots of compromises in coffee.

If you think real hard about it:


If Maxwell is correct, then you can never roast a blend can you, because it will always get a compromise?

Cupping to determine a winner in world roasting competitions is complete rubbish

A bean not suited for espresso can be roasted to make it suitable wtf?!


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

DavecUK said:


> I think Maxwell is completely wrong on this.
> 
> My personal experience has been that some coffees suite some prep methods better than others, but to roast them to "fit" a particular method better, is not a good practice..You want to try and bring out what that bean has to offer, otherwise why bother buying different coffees. There are certain coffees I don't roast very often, because they suit preparation methods I generally don't use. Of course roasters are there to make a profit, they have to live after all. So they will try and produce roasts that "hit the spot" for the customer base that maximises sales. This is usually a broader customer base. Roasters want their coffee to have a wide appeal and work in a variety of situations. Hence some produce an "espresso roast" of a particular bean as opposed to a "non espresso" roast, most try and produce an "omni roast". The luxury people like Maxwell have is, speaking at a presentation, commercial roasters have a living to make. This means there are lots of compromises in coffee.
> 
> ...


1. What's the reason you say, it'll always get a compromise? Obviously I don't know his thoughts on blends although I don't think it rules out compromise on every aspect of coffee just because he doesn't want to compromise (in his view) on the roast style. I also don't know, to be fair, if it was an absolute or general preference from him, they still stock HasBean for instance but I think he said they use it for espresso (happy to be corrected on this but he definitely said it was only used with one method). Just makes me wonder if maybe you're assuming the espresso roast is a certain characteristic when actually he's looking for something different in filter.

2. He certainly mentioned espresso roast won't necessarily cup as well. Should I assume cupping is a definitive way to judge coffee because it's what some competitions do?

3. I don't follow the logic


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

jlarkin said:


> So to check my understanding; you think people shouldn't roast for specifically either filter or espresso because tasting is subjective?
> 
> Unless I've misunderstood you surely you'd only ever have the subjective opinion of those people you have tasting it, regardless of roast aim?
> 
> Is it also possible they're roasting for different solubility or other factors that are considered better for one or other outside of taste (I don't know much about roasting, genuine pondering)? Need to read it again but this made me consider that http://www.assemblycoffee.co.uk/what/


I didn't express myself fantastically as was heading to bed.

Yes, everything is subjective; I might prefer my espresso with a lower ey to x and x roaster; they may specifically roast an 'espresso' coffee to have a higher ey than their filter roast may have; I try their filter roast in espresso and find it perfect for my taste, I feel the flavour of the bean pops and have never felt so fantastic about a bean. By labelling 'filter' or 'espresso' roast you're ostracising individuals from trying the bean across a number of methods, which limits them from finding they may like something.

I tried all of has beans 'espresso' blends as filter coffee too; I felt kicker was a zingy, lemony, cup of delight through an aeropress and think I may have enjoyed it more in this method than in espresso.

Of course the roaster can pick profiles they feel work well with their tastes for different brew styles, but they should then add that as a "we enjoyed this roast most as an espresso because we felt it did xyz more" rather than a "if you do anything with this bean other than what we say its for you are WRONG" type affair.


----------



## hotmetal (Oct 31, 2013)

I've been following this hoping to learn something as I know nothing about roasting. What do we mean when we say "espresso roast" or "filter roast"? Is espresso roast x% darker for a given bean? Or slower and cooler? What does it all mean? As a layman I can only imagine roasting to get the best from a bean (although if you then test it as espresso and brew, surely you're then skewed by which method you enjoy the most? )

I know a lot of roasters list their offerings under espresso or brewed, but I assumed this was due to the bean rather than how they roasted it.

The blend thing for me seems to be whether you blend before or after roasting - each bean type surely would need a different profile in an ideal world (like these bags of mixed rice where the wild rice is always undercooked or the white rice is mushy). In a commercial environment I imagine blending post roast is impractical, however desirable it may be in theory.

Do most people who drink brewed go for SO? I always see people talking of clarity when discussing brew so I assumed blends are more of an espresso thing?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Buy coffee > make coffee > do you enjoy it? Is it tasty ? This is to some degree all that matters . Example - I am enjoying a Sqm coffee that is under filter recommendation at that moment as espresso and milk based . It's easy to extract and enjoyable .

Conversely I enjoyed last years has bean Xmas filter blend more as Espresso . Use the roasters recomendations by all means - don't be constrained by them though.


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

Precisely my point- but in itself I think it suggests roasters need to change attitudes to labelling their product as it creates the wrong environment for an open dialogue with coffee and with each other.

I've had so many people sickened by my assertions regarding different roasters 'espresso' being equally enjoyable as a filter. This should not be!


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

hotmetal said:


> I've been following this hoping to learn something as I know nothing about roasting. What do we mean when we say "espresso roast" or "filter roast"? Is espresso roast x% darker for a given bean? Or slower and cooler? What does it all mean? As a layman I can only imagine roasting to get the best from a bean (although if you then test it as espresso and brew, surely you're then skewed by which method you enjoy the most? )
> 
> I know a lot of roasters list their offerings under espresso or brewed, but I assumed this was due to the bean rather than how they roasted it.
> 
> ...


Blends are generally more widely used for espresso.... I think a lot of the whys are based on coffee mythology. Same as brewed being so in general.

'slow brewing really needs to be SO so the flavour of the bean can be enjoyed in its purest form' springs to mind.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

simontc said:


> Blends are generally more widely used for espresso.... I think a lot of the whys are based on coffee mythology. .


Also helped create a point of difference for roasters and cafes at one point ...


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> Use the roasters recomendations by all means - don't be constrained by them though.


True that. Has bean for example seem to routinely list everything on IMM as suitable for filter and espresso. In my experience there were a few which I felt really only worked one way. Probably my butchering though.


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

But this is the point; what you didn't like as filter I may have loved.

To be honest, lets also not forget that the myriad brew methods and techniques we now all use blur the lines of what a 'filter' coffee is anyway. Case in point is the dude on the geisha thread that loved the bean in aeropress, but felt it wasn't as good in v60....


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Mrboots2u said:


> Buy coffee > make coffee > do you enjoy it? Is it tasty ? This is to some degree all that matters . Example - I am enjoying a Sqm coffee that is under filter recommendation at that moment as espresso and milk based . It's easy to extract and enjoyable .
> 
> Conversely I enjoyed last years has bean Xmas filter blend more as Espresso . Use the roasters recomendations by all means - don't be constrained by them though.


Do you think that the EKspresso you make is a slightly different beast to the 'standard' espresso that most of us make? is it the case that you can hit higher EY's with light roasts that may not be possible with other setups?

This is kind of obvious, but different roasters will have a different idea of 'espresso' roast. i think for the more enlightened (in my view) roasters the difference will be relatively subtle, but for others it may just mean 'dark'.


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

Everything you say is correct... The same goes without an ek though too.

How long do you run an espresso, what's the ration. Etc etc.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

fluffles said:


> Do you think that the EKspresso you make is a slightly different beast to the 'standard' espresso that most of us make? is it the case that you can hit higher EY's with light roasts that may not be possible with other setups?
> 
> This is kind of obvious, but different roasters will have a different idea of 'espresso' roast. i think for the more enlightened (in my view) roasters the difference will be relatively subtle, but for others it may just mean 'dark'.


Different Roasters will have a different ideas of what is tasty - based on personal preference - roaster used - water used . Not just about its dark or light outside but how the bean is developed in the roast too .


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

These are really terms it's best left to roasters to squabble about. They're not really meaningful, a roaster will usually indicate if a roast is well suited to espresso (if not otherwise stated), plus you can always ask before you buy.

If an "Omni" roast (no one is actually taking responsibility for that term, roasting to 'highlight the bean as the roaster would like to present it' is perhaps a more accurate, if not exactly catchy, phrase) is soluble/developed/tasty enough as espresso, then it's an espresso roast by any other name.

A filter roast doesn't need to be quite as easy to extract, as drip/pourover is possibly the most aggressive extraction method (compared to immersion & espresso), so beware if buying a designated "filter roast" for use as espresso (may still produce a tasty brew, even if at different parameters, though).

If you can extract a coffee as espresso/immersion, then drip/pourover shouldn't be a problem, as long as you like the outcome...if you do/don't, then it doesn't really matter what you call it.


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

fluffles said:


> Do you think that the EKspresso you make is a slightly different beast to the 'standard' espresso that most of us make? is it the case that you can hit higher EY's with light roasts that may not be possible with other setups?
> 
> This is kind of obvious, but different roasters will have a different idea of 'espresso' roast. i think for the more enlightened (in my view) roasters the difference will be relatively subtle, but for others it may just mean 'dark'.


Paging @FiveElephantCoffee

5e offer a filter and espresso roast of most of their coffees. They have previously stated



> We are currently profiling for a target between 22-24% extraction, depending on the coffee, with a low TDS.
> 
> High extraction and low TDS, with the reduced spread of grinding particle size on the EK43...


Not sure if this referred to filter, espresso or both but they do specifically target the ek43.

The time I had some 5e at home it was lovely, but I did wonder all the while what I was missing but not grinding on an ek43.

I believe the roasts are also profiled using water as close as possible to the ideal?


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

I think its tough balancing act as a roaster; you want to reach what you think tastes best so you will try to hit the best parameters for when you taste. Of course the whole time you know that your consumer will not (more than likely) hit those parameters. Water, eks etc.


----------



## frandavi99 (Jun 8, 2014)

I don't know anything about roasting but I guess if you have a target EY then roasting the beans differently will affect the extraction via a particular method to best hit your target parameters. But how many people are brewing coffee with that much precision? This forum is the top of the coffee consuming public and not all of us have that level of equipment and skill; I certainly don't.

Does anyone roast the same coffee in two different ways? Personally it's only worth it if you can roast the same coffee differently and get noticeable differences in the cup. If a bean only lends itself to one roast style then aren't you just getting the most from a bean as opposed to roasting for a particular brewing method?


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

frandavi99 said:


> Does anyone roast the same coffee in two different ways? Personally it's only worth it if you can roast the same coffee differently and get noticeable differences in the cup. If a bean only lends itself to one roast style then aren't you just getting the most from a bean as opposed to roasting for a particular brewing method?


I think a few people roast the same bean more than one way. I know that Cast iron coffee roasters do and I think I've seen others but can't think who now.

Of course coffee compass do with some of the beans as well


----------



## frandavi99 (Jun 8, 2014)

@jlarkin and is there a noticeable difference? I might give this little experiment a try for my next purchase of beans.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

frandavi99 said:


> I don't know anything about roasting but I guess if you have a target EY then roasting the beans differently will affect the extraction via a particular method to best hit your target parameters. But how many people are brewing coffee with that much precision? This forum is the top of the coffee consuming public and not all of us have that level of equipment and skill; I certainly don't.
> 
> Does anyone roast the same coffee in two different ways? Personally it's only worth it if you can roast the same coffee differently and get noticeable differences in the cup. If a bean only lends itself to one roast style then aren't you just getting the most from a bean as opposed to roasting for a particular brewing method?


It's not so much a question of brewing to a specific EY, it's more that roasters have different preferences, are looking maybe to highight different things in the same coffee, this may mean a good/typical target on the cupping table might not translate to an easy to achieve extraction in a finicky brew method like espresso (but may be great as Chemex & V60). If roasters are brewing to a tight & specific cupping EY target (dialling in grind so that each coffee hits the same point) that's pretty much "brewing", as any protocol pertaining to grind is now out of the window.

Once you have measured a good few cupping immersions in terms of EY, it's not that hard to repeat, nor to assess where you are EY-wise (for a given method), remember that the golden cup box was determined by coffee consumers, not experts...it was the coffee consuming public that had the senses & "skill" to identify it.

Square Mile, St Ali, James Gourmet (just off the top of my head) are roasters who also specify espresso & filter roasts.

If you roast a very soluble coffee for filter/"Omni" (sic), it may still extract easily for espresso...so it's now an espresso roast irrespective of what you call it, or how many cracks you heard.

Is there any evidence that coffees lend themselves to one, single roast style, given that there is variability in roasting itself? Roasting everything to make it easy to extract as espresso may mute more interesting aspects that shine as brewed in a lot of coffees.


----------



## frandavi99 (Jun 8, 2014)

Seems like it always boils down to the same thing; subjectiveness of what you like to taste in your cup. I like that specifying a roast style gives me a good starting point to try and get a good cup, but take it as little more than a recommendation.


----------



## hotmetal (Oct 31, 2013)

So I'm still a bit confused as to what actually constitutes an 'espresso roast' vs 'filter roast'. Would a single roaster be able to roast the same bean 2 different ways to make it one or the other? Or is it simply that the roaster has roasted the bean how he thinks best, and then labels it according to which method he believes it to be best suited to? Are we assuming that 'espresso' roast is always more roasted than filter, even though it could be a roast marked as "espresso: light/medium"?

When buying beans I have always deferred to the roaster's superior knowledge and have generally bought beans marked as (or listed under) 'espresso', on the basis that they've tested it and know best. However some roasters provide tasting notes for each bean for a variety of methods, which makes me think you can extract it however you like. This seems to be borne out by those here who have stated that they have had great espresso from 'filter' beans and vice versa.

I'm probably not enough of an expert to really tease out the nuances of this argument but it's beginning to sound to me like semantics rather than a particular approach to the roasting process itself.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

A roaster can use different profile for beans . To develop them more or in different ways ( though different profiles )

Ones mans espresso roast could be another roasters omni or filter .

Roasters will roast to their preference , influenced by water , tastes etc .

I think people are over thinking this stuff .

Biy beans - check notes to see if sounds good - check recomendations in brew methods. A lot of roasters will have a " best as " recommendation . Try though and experiment with what you get . Enjoy , have fun


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

I think if have to agree with Steve Leighton on this one. He says that Omni roasting is just coffee roasted properly. Controversial I know but I'm very much in the same camp. Solubility is only part of what we're doing too. Sometimes solubility has to be partly sacrificed in the name of tastiness. Personally, I steer clear of anything that has 'roasted for espresso' on it as in my (admittedly limited) experience, it tends to be over developed for my tastes. Stuff that's roasted 'for filter' I find is often perfectly fine in any method.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

foundrycoffeeroasters.com said:


> I think if have to agree with Steve Leighton on this one. He says that Omni roasting is just coffee roasted properly. Controversial I know but I'm very much in the same camp. Solubility is only part of what we're doing too. Sometimes solubility has to be partly sacrificed in the name of tastiness. Personally, I steer clear of anything that has 'roasted for espresso' on it as in my (admittedly limited) experience, it tends to be over developed for my tastes. Stuff that's roasted 'for filter' I find is often perfectly fine in any method.


Do you mean by, "roasting properly", roasting to the roaster's definition of properly? If you roast to what you think is tasty & go no further, you're determining what is "proper/tasty" & excluding anything else. Seems too much like an edict/self fulfilling prophecy/absolute determination to me.

Making a call on how soluble you think the coffee needs to be to reflect what you want to show is entirely your call, but no more/less proper & right than others who issue roasts at a different stage of development...as long as it's still tasty.


----------



## foundrycoffeeroasters.com (Jun 19, 2014)

MWJB said:


> Do you mean "roasting properly", roasting to the roaster's definition of properly? If you roast to what you think is tasty & go no further, you're determining what is "proper/tasty" & excluding anything else. Seems too much like an edict/self fulfilling prophecy/absolute determination to me.
> 
> Making a call on how soluble you think the coffee needs to be to reflect what you want to show is entirely your call, but no more/less proper & right than others who issue roasts at a different stage of development...as long as it's still tasty.


Absolutely agree with almost everything you say. Everything is subjective ultimately, at least as far as 'tastiest' that the coffee can be. I think solubility is secondary in the sense that whilst it's important, it has to come second to tasty. So, some beans are tasty but harder work for the barista/Brewer to work with.

I don't really consider solubility that much in the first stages of developing a profile. I'm just looking for interesting flavours and trying things out. The coffee has to be within an 'acceptable range' as far as solubility goes but I'm not aiming for a particular measure in that respect.

The previous crop rocko was a good example. It was probably on the outer edges of that acceptable range and so a lot of people really struggled to work with it, some people even struggled to grind the coffee fine enough etc. The amazing flavours that we were getting though meant that less solubility was just the price paid for something special. We could have made it easier to work with, but at the expense of tasty.

One of the reasons that I won't roast blends is because I think you have to roast each blend component to be similarly soluble, which by definition puts tasty in second place, incredibly hard to get right - I've certainly never managed it to my own satisfaction, so wouldn't dream of selling it.

Of course, I'm not proclaiming to be 'right' - it's just where my thinking is at the moment.


----------



## hotmetal (Oct 31, 2013)

I think you can't say fairer than that. Given the subjective nature, and trying to find the balance between "gorgeous but only experts with top gear can do it" and "tasty enough for anyone with a Mignon/Classic to be able to enjoy"; and given the fact that even if you got the whole of the WBC competitors to put in their twopennorth, "right" is probably not really attainable. You can please some of the people all the time. ...


----------



## simontc (May 21, 2014)

But that's the point; more roasters need to accept that as an attitude and embrace it as part of their production.

I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they have to stop producing two roasts, just that rather than a cast iron 'this only works as espresso' a more 'we like this as espresso' statement is forwarded.


----------

