JadeEast
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Posts
- 2,215
- Likes
- 182
Milk and sugar are like using eq.
Quote:I spend about $1200 a year going to star bucks. i dont really care what beans they use as long as it has three pumps of chocolate and 160 degree milk
That's the equivalent of saying "I spend $1200 on iTunes and only listen on Beats-by-Dre. I don't really care about sound fidelity so long it's loud and has bass.".
There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't "coffee-fi".
The reason they are consistent is because they started using automatic machines
They do everything from grinding, tamping, extracting with the push of a button.
You sacrifice a lot of quality that way, yes they are OK at making espresso based drinks. But that's it. Their espresso is heavily masked with gallons of milks, syrups, fruits and whatever they put in there now.
Most people like that and it's fine. They have a target audience.
But for people wanting to experience a real espresso or coffee, sbucks is not the place I would suggest.
I'm not hating on Starbucks though, they have their place, just like picking between McDonald's and a Steakhouse to eat a burger.
I don't know why folks are so down on Starbucks coffee? First off so many people go there making them the largest and best known coffee retailers. Obviously a lot of people love them too.
They are amazing in that any place you go in the world the Starbucks tastes exactly, absolutely exactly the same. Very few products are that consistent. They figure that if folks get used to how something tastes then the goal is to always produce it. The way they do it is by combining beans from all over. This allows them to maybe not be held hostage by one suppler. The beans are roasted to what would be equal to french roast dark.
Obviously there are better tasting coffees out there. I really like their espresso better than their coffee. Still I think they are OK for what they do.
I quite enjoy Starbucks coffee (not espresso). It's not spectacular by any means but it is definitely in the upper 5% of all coffee sold in the US (not counting Starbucks market share). Their bean sourcing is good, as is their blend recipes. The reason why they are not capable of achieving "high fidelity" level of coffee production is that they buy in mass quantities , roast in bulk volumes by timer (rather than by hand), will use beans that are weeks old, and only make coffee via a single "old standby" paper filter drip method. It is, as you point out, 100% consistently pretty good. Given the choice I would make my own or go into a better coffee shop, but when Starbucks is the only option (which is often) I don't turn my nose up at it. The only time it's genuinely bad is when they don't toss it and make a fresh batch as often as their procedures dictate, which leads to a sour/burnt cup.
Their actual straight espresso, though, is somewhere between awful and mediocre. Not undrinkable, but not anything any espresso aficionado would describe as "good" or even "passable" in the world of quality espresso. However that's masked by the milk and syrups which is how 99% of all their espresso drinks are sold. For a milk based drink "not undrinkable" is all that's needed. It's pretty rare to see anyone buy a straight espresso from Starbucks.
To continue my earlier analogy, it's the iTunes & Beats of the coffee world. I listen to iTunes enjoy it in the car; my wife only buys music on iTunes so much of what we own is in their format. I don't, though, have any illusions about it being audiophile.
I think it depends where you are; if you're in a metropolitan area, you'll be able to find an independent coffee house that knows what they're doing pretty easily. Starbuck's is considered the premium brand for chain stores, but not necessarily on par with what the little guy is doing.