Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The only meaningful difference with high-end coffee is that those have a softer, smoother taste. Less bitter. That's it. respectfully disagree, and i'm not even a coffee snob -- just a life long addict who doesn't analyze, just drinks. Wine tastes like shit to me, but i'd never be so sure that my interpretation of it was correct that i'd try to explain why wine snobs exist. I understand there all wines have nuances…
No. there's only two coffee tastes: hard and soft. Relax, I was intentionally simplifying. I am fine with people deeply exploring every nuance of every coffee, the only real challenge and pushback I have is that much of it is learned. People think coffee at work (or any other "regular" coffee) is bad because somebody else said it. Not because they discovered this on their own. Likewise, discovering "better" coffee is…
Say you taste something with a very generic taste that you can't really describe other than 'brown with a bit of a toasty taste', then if taste something else that makes you have a much more descriptive or complicated taste and you also like that new taste, you now have something to compare against.
This has nothing to do with coffee per se or 'better vs worse', just with what you taste and if you want to explore it.
The same goes for details within a taste. A raw potato tastes different from a cooked potato, and the texture of that same cooked potato but mashed makes you experience it differently as well. If you fry that same potato, now it's different again. It doesn't really change the potato itself into something else (like changing it into a carrot or something silly like that), but it does change what you experience when eating it.