Profitec Pro T64 Grinder - Page 2

Recommendations for buyers and upgraders from the site's members.
User avatar
thecatch83
Posts: 290
Joined: 8 years ago

#11: Post by thecatch83 »

malling wrote:There is no static due to the antistatic grid, the antistatic grid is holding grinds back and compacting the grinds in the chute of this reason.

So there is obviously retention as this is part of the design to minimize static and the effect this has on distribution.

This design dos not just results in retention but even
worse the new grinds mix allot with the retention and it takes quite allot of grams to get rid of all the retention in the chute!

If one is on a budget, one can learn to live with it but I would rather wait for the e37s to get back in stock if the price is comparable
So you have experience using a Pro T64? Perhaps you can lend some insight into the grind quality, and empirical data in the cup? So with the smallest of possibilities someone doesn't want to pay the extra $200 (as crazy as that sounds) for the Ceado, or deal with the spraying grind and gate modification issues with the E37, do you have another recommendation in the sub $1K grinder category other than the Eureka 65E that can match the performance of the T64 and its Gicar controlled PID dosing, 450 watt, 64 mm burr set?

User avatar
tegee
Posts: 172
Joined: 8 years ago

#12: Post by tegee »

malling wrote:There is no static due to the antistatic grid, the antistatic grid is holding grinds back and compacting the grinds in the chute of this reason.

So there is obviously retention as this is part of the design to minimize static and the effect this has on distribution.

This design dos not just results in retention but even
worse the new grinds mix allot with the retention and it takes quite allot of grams to get rid of all the retention in the chute!

If one is on a budget, one can learn to live with it but I would rather wait for the e37s to get back in stock if the price is comparable

This was the EXACT reason why I chose the E37S over the T64. The retention as the key issue holding me back.

The Ceado has been bliss...FWIW. Retention is extremely low and quality of grind is exceptional.

malling
Posts: 2900
Joined: 13 years ago

#13: Post by malling »

thecatch83 wrote:So you have experience using a Pro T64? Perhaps you can lend some insight into the grind quality, and empirical data in the cup? So with the smallest of possibilities someone doesn't want to pay the extra $200 (as crazy as that sounds) for the Ceado, or deal with the spraying grind and gate modification issues with the E37, do you have another recommendation in the sub $1K grinder category other than the Eureka 65E that can match the performance of the T64 and its Gicar controlled PID dosing, 450 watt, 64 mm burr set?

I have owned and used enough grinders with a similar chute dosing funnel design. This is basically a copy of those designs. It is an effect of this particulate design that it retain more then comparable grinders, the design results in a completely filled chute (which also shows in the pictures), this grind isn't going to be pushed out first it is being mixed with new grinds that also will find a way though it where there is the smallest amount of restrictions. This design where never intended for home usage, but in a setting with higher flow where retention where not an issue. It is of course not going to be worse then bigger grinders with the same design or for that matter 99% of the conicals out there but it is just not the optimum design for a home grinder.

If it is made by macap I have a pretty good idea what it is cable off. Eg. Super Jolly quality. Unless they have done a very good job in alignment. Then it might perform somewhere in between this and a big burr grinder.

I rather having a grinder with bigger burrs and risk minimum spray or the design Eureka offers, their adjustment mechanism is one of the best on the market IMHO

User avatar
tegee
Posts: 172
Joined: 8 years ago

#14: Post by tegee »

malling wrote:I have owned and used enough grinders with a similar chute dosing funnel design. This is basically a copy of those designs. It is an effect of this particulate design that it retain more then comparable grinders, the design results in a completely filled chute (which also shows in the pictures), this grind isn't going to be pushed out first it is being mixed with new grinds that also will find a way though it where there is the smallest amount of restrictions. This design where never intended for home usage, but in a setting with higher flow where retention where not an issue. It is of course not going to be worse then bigger grinders with the same design or for that matter 99% of the conicals out there but it is just not the optimum design for a home grinder.

If it is made by macap I have a pretty good idea what it is cable off. Eg. Super Jolly quality. Unless they have done a very good job in alignment. Then it might perform somewhere in between this and a big burr grinder.

I rather having a grinder with bigger burrs and risk minimum spray or the design Eureka offers, their adjustment mechanism is one of the best on the market IMHO

What an insightful post...thx for sharing your experiences to help others make an informed decision.

User avatar
thecatch83
Posts: 290
Joined: 8 years ago

#15: Post by thecatch83 »

malling wrote:I have owned and used enough grinders with a similar chute dosing funnel design. This is basically a copy of those designs. It is an effect of this particulate design that it retain more then comparable grinders, the design results in a completely filled chute (which also shows in the pictures), this grind isn't going to be pushed out first it is being mixed with new grinds that also will find a way though it where there is the smallest amount of restrictions. This design where never intended for home usage, but in a setting with higher flow where retention where not an issue. It is of course not going to be worse then bigger grinders with the same design or for that matter 99% of the conicals out there but it is just not the optimum design for a home grinder.

If it is made by macap I have a pretty good idea what it is cable off. Eg. Super Jolly quality. Unless they have done a very good job in alignment. Then it might perform somewhere in between this and a big burr grinder.

I rather having a grinder with bigger burrs and risk minimum spray or the design Eureka offers, their adjustment mechanism is one of the best on the market IMHO
So the answer is no, you have zero experience with the pro T64. I just got off the phone with Ben at CC, and he said hands down the T64 and Eureka Zenith (which I own and currently use) are the best grinders in the sub $1k class....and it's not even close. The guys at Clive have been using the T64 daily for the last year in their Portland store, and it has performed flawlessly.

malling
Posts: 2900
Joined: 13 years ago

#16: Post by malling »

You don't need experience with all grinders out there, to get a grasp of how these work, the Profitec grinder uses standard grinder parts, there is no revolutionary in its design or it's functions, after all we are not debating the Eg-1 or any other special grinder.

I'm sure the grinder work flawlessly, this is not what I have criticized so far or even tried to point out, a Mini E and Quamar that are using similar doserless designs also work flawlessly, or one could say these work as designed!

It is the design I'm criticizing from a retention/waste point of view, yes it work, but is less great then grinders who has chosen a more expensive solution then the one Profitec, ECM, Profitec, Rocket, Mazzer and Quamar has chosen. And none of these deliver a very good distribution into the portafilter, but then you usually also have to a pay a premium price to get that.

I would not advice anyone too change from one 64/65mm to another one in its class, unless the other one is a k30! The gain is simply put to small, both from a consistency and result in the cup point of view.

LA
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 years ago

#17: Post by LA »

There seems to be a consensus that the k30, as a 65mm burr grinder, is comparable to the best 83mm grinders in grind quality/taste, while usually the smaller grinders are inferior.

I'm surprised that it seems less clear why the k30 may be better than other grinders of its size. (It should be perfectly clear to Mahlkonig, at least?)

I have seen two things suggested, burr alignment and burr shape. If the critical aspects were clear and the details given for every grinder, wouldn't that be tremendously helpful in backing taste reports, like in this case for the Profitec grinder?

whitedime
Posts: 104
Joined: 8 years ago

#18: Post by whitedime »

Ive had some excellent cups with my classika / t64 combo

zimberto
Posts: 98
Joined: 13 years ago

#19: Post by zimberto »

The large black plastic adjustment cog on the T64 is atypical of a grinder at its price point. If I spend $1K on a grinder I don't want plastic in any part of the machinery.

Kellyk
Posts: 70
Joined: 8 years ago

#20: Post by Kellyk replying to zimberto »

Would metal work better? Possibly if to the same tolerances. Do I actually adjust it often to the point of putting stress on the cog? No. To me a larger cog with a worm gear puts little wear on the item. Plastic may actually work better at this price point than what may be ill fitting pot metal.

Have you had issues with the adjustments on your grinder? I've had none. Much better to adjust than my Compak but that's perhaps not saying much.