I cannot imagine anyone who works with audio regularly would realistically consider replacing Ableton/Logic/ProTools/Reaper/etc with whatever recording experience this provides (no screenshots doesn't help your pitch).
The versioning idea is interesting and something many musicians have to contend with as they work on songs. Personally, I wouldn't want the complexity of take-level versioning, but pinning audio and mix automation to a given mixdown could be useful for tracking the history of a song. It might be more effective to approach this as version tracking / collaboration layer around existing DAW formats rather than a full replacement.
Very cool, very creative. I found myself hitting refresh multiple times on the index page to see the random ascii art headlines. Finding the hidden menu in the corner leads you down a rabbit hole of fascinating experiments.
30 seconds is indeed the _original_ Aeropress recommended brew time. [1] You're supposed to mix the grounds and start plunging nearly immediately, finishing in about 30 seconds. So, indeed, much of the water passes through even before 30 seconds.
That was way too short. It looks like they've finally updated the instructions somewhat, now recommending 60 seconds before starting to plunge. [2]
It works because they also recommend a very fine grind, but that's still pretty short. It looks like Counter Culture recommends using regular pour-over grind and the inverted method and 2-3 minutes, [3] which happens to also be what I do. Though I'm not really particular, so long as it's somewhere between about 1.5 and 3.5 minutes. (Breakfast is a hectic time while also handling kids...)
The idea is that the more pressure you use, the more unwanted materials like fines and oils will get though the paper. So if you press slowly and stop when you hear a hiss, you should have a better brew.
It does make sense, if imagine pressing through in 5 seconds vs 30 seconds, that the paper filtration would work better in the slower press. But I'm not sure if anyone has scientifically measured this.
Actually wait, it's coffee. Someone has definitely scientifically measured it and probably published a two hour YouTube video with their results.
I've had good results from the James Hoffman recipe [0], although I brew inverted. You can push the plunger down with just the weight of resting your arm on the plunger. For something very different, you can brew something not-quite-espresso using the Fellow Prismo cap for the Aeropress.
Personal opinion is that the whole point of aeropress is that you don't need to follow any recipes to get a good result. The parameters are extremely flexible to the point of being close to foolproof. Start with good beans and water. Grind anywhere between French press and very fine pourover level. Brew anytime between 1 minute and 8 minutes. Add anywhere between 100ml and 200ml of water. Press reasonably slowly.
The results will always be good. Maybe not the level you'd get with extremely high quality light roasted beans and a very careful pourover technique, but maybean aeropress isn't the best brewer for those beans in the first place.
There are many different ways to use the Aeropress. I'd assume that the recipe the author is following simply asks for a 30 second steep time.
I personally found that the time actually doesn't matter that much, you control extraction by grind size, water temperature and agitation. It might be that if you grind too fine you can still reduce extraction by cutting the time short, but that seems rather inconvenient for this method.
I usually let it steep for 5 minutes, but the exact time doesn't change much. Shorter times aren't that desirable for me anyway as the coffee is still too hot then as I start with boiling water.
The grind is the most important part I think. Super fine espresso grinds taste the best for me. Coarser, like french press grounds, need a longer agitation/agitation time but still have less taste.
Its just how long you are meant to let the coffee brew. Try if you make tea you need to let bag steep for a minute or 2. But actually timing it???? Useful if you are a goldfish may be but otherwise i dont understand who can’t remember to do something in 30 seconds.
Fwiw i oftrn let me aeropress brew for a few minutes. 30 secs is hella short.
this is awesome. would suggest not randomizing the tempo on regenerate, and if it was already playing, when hitting regenerate, keep it playing. that would make it easy to quickly audition loops at a given tempo with a single click
I think this is a really good way to think of it actually. My business partner and I often have this back and forth: "Do you want this done the right way or the fast way?" Most often we do a "happy medium" between the two and accept that there is work to be done in the future. This is not a bad way to do it, as more often than not the "right way" actually needs quite a bit more customer research first - often pushing "Todo" code to production reveals the use cases that show that the suspected "right way" was wrong, and the actual "right way" is to burn all the code and use a completely different existing module to do it instead, consolidating what were (incorrectly) understood to be different use cases. This is probably my favourite way of paying down technical debt.
The versioning idea is interesting and something many musicians have to contend with as they work on songs. Personally, I wouldn't want the complexity of take-level versioning, but pinning audio and mix automation to a given mixdown could be useful for tracking the history of a song. It might be more effective to approach this as version tracking / collaboration layer around existing DAW formats rather than a full replacement.
reply