How do the various pour-over methods compare to espresso machine type coffee?
I've got a strong preference for coffee brewed using an espresso machine (ie high pressure extraction pushed through a tiny hole), but I'm not really sure what the cause is - is it different levels of extracted compounds? Is there any pour-over methods (ie not pressurised) that are similar?
Espresso machines are good at extracting the oils along with the coffee. The crema is basically the froth as a result of this.
There are some beans (e.g., Yemeni ones) that have very high oil content and you can get a similar taste with simple brewing.
You could try an aero press with an additional attachment, such as [1], but it probably wont be able to replicate the full range of flavours of an espresso machine.
If you havent tried the classic pour overs with freshly ground specialty coffee, I would really recommend it. I used to be an espresso guy, but now I only drink filters.
They're completely different brewing methods. Pour over is "slow," gravity based, and uses a medium to course grind (depending on brewing method), while espresso is "fast," uses a pump to pressurize the flow of water through the puck, and uses finer grinds. The closest manual brew method to espresso that I'm aware of is a Mocha Pot. There is also the AeroPress, which is kind of a hybrid brew style.
But how do they differ along the only metric which matters? Taste? I don't really care about my brewing method, I don't particularly care about the time to brew (as long as its within a few minutes), I couldn't give a hoot about the grind size.
What I care about is what the coffee tastes like. How do the different brewing methods differ in taste, and what causes them to differ?
That's a complicated question to answer! The short answer is that literally every variable involved in brewing affects taste - brew time, water mineralization, water temp, grind, brewer, bean origin, processing method, roast temp.
Espresso and slow brew coffee are probably the furthest apart, and many people like one and not the other, it's a personal preference. But even if you like slow brew, there's not a single one that tastes better than all the others. That's a little like asking which wine tastes the best. Some wines taste objectively terrible, but after a certain point it comes down personal taste. Some people like darker vs lighter roasts, high vs mellow acidity, and on and on.
If you just need somewhere to get started, I would start with slow brew because it's much cheaper. A good grinder can be expensive, but there are inexpensive manual grinders that do a decent job. Watch some videos, buy some coffee, and see what you like.
Taste is subjective, and there are many variables in coffee prep that affect different aspects of it. Grind size, roast level, brew temp, brew time, brew method, etc will all cause variations in the taste, some quite large.
You also have different variables in the taste itself. The sweetness, acidity, bitterness, earthy flavors etc. There is also the feel of the liquid, based on the amount of suspended soluble material and oils.
What causes the differences is primarily that different chemicals are present in the coffee, and more are created in the roasting process. Those chemicals all have slightly different rates in which they will become soluble based on temperature and pressure. A finer grind, higher temperature, or longer brew will all result in extracting more of basically everything, some of which might taste unpleasant to you.
I've got a strong preference for coffee brewed using an espresso machine (ie high pressure extraction pushed through a tiny hole), but I'm not really sure what the cause is - is it different levels of extracted compounds? Is there any pour-over methods (ie not pressurised) that are similar?