La Marzocco against Anita

[ronpistolero]

I did not get any reply from the other forum hence I may be guilty of cross posting here. In any case, I have an Anita matched with a Macap M4, dosered. Given the same tamp pressure & shot times and of course the same set of beans, would an Anita be able to match the output of a La Marzocco, taste-wise? I have tried several shots at various times after the 6 ounce water dance (20, 30, 40, and 50 seconds). I can make good shots but significantly off what I tasted from the LM at Terry's Crema Cafe set 92 degrees C. Any comments/suggestions?

Ron

[HB]

I can make good shots but significantly off what I tasted from the LM at Terry's Crema Cafe set 92 degrees C. Any comments/suggestions?

Interesting question, but before answering, I have a question for you: In what ways was the Quickmill's taste "off" from the La Marzocco's?

[hbuchtel]

I recall that they roast their own "Malabar Gold" there, right? If so, that'll be another thing to consider...

Henry

[zin1953]

Interesting question, but before answering, I have a question for you: In what ways was the Quickmill's taste "off" from the La Marzocco's?

Interesting question, but I have ANTOHER question for you: Why would you think that an Anita would be the equal of a La Marzocco?

[shadowfax]

While the LM is unquestionably going to be dramatically more consistent than a tiny little Anita, calling it "better" (in terms of taste) imposes someone's own taste judgment on the two machines. I can imagine that someone might prefer the shots made by Anita's easy-preinfusion, big-HX-hump profiles rather than the ultra-stable slant-L profile of the LM. Of course, under any circumstances, a machine that repeated Anita's profiles exactly yet more easily repeatably would be preferable.

In addition to asking Dan's question, I would suggest from what I read in the Titan Grinder Project that the difference between shot profiles between the LM at the coffee shop and your Anita at home could be as much from the different grinders as the different machines. You have a small Macap M4, and I would expect that the shop uses a Mazzer Major or a Robur, or a comparably sized grinder of a different brand. Those grinders seem to bring a lot to the table in terms of improving shot "clarity" (at least, the Robur!) and consistency.

So that'd be my assumption: you are probably not going to be able to duplicate the flavors that you get on a massive double boiler machine paired with a very large, fast commercial grinder with huge burrs by using a small HX machine with a small grinder. My intuition says it'd be like trying to make a gas engine sound like a diesel... Not happening. Of course, you may favor one, and if you favor Anita, no doubt it's a bit frustrating to have that degree of inconsistency.

That said, I am curious to hear what you detect is the difference in the flavors pulled at home and at the shop.

[ronpistolero]

Interesting question, but before answering, I have a question for you: In what ways was the Quickmill's taste "off" from the La Marzocco's?

Oh no. I guess this is where it will end. I am so lousy with adjectives. In fact, I may even be guilty of being biased against my Anita because I have had it since October of 2006. To the best of my memory, the only description of the LM shot was that it seemed to have made a very good blend/balance of flavors, well rounded too. But I do remember the espresso blend I got from Tully's of Japan (way much better from the Tully's in Seattle) was really good, and I got fairly closer results with my Anita in comparison to their commercial machine. Anyway, I hope to learn from your significantly more experienced opinions on how I can approach the flavors of the LM as I am aware they cannot be the same. I mean isn't that what we are all paying for with regards to prosumer machines?

[ronpistolero]

I recall that they roast their own "Malabar Gold" there, right? If so, that'll be another thing to consider...

Henry

I forgot to add that info. I got the same Malabar Gold from him, a kilo worth, which he roasted the night before I flew back to the Philippines and I really am hoping I won't be wasting it with average shots as against potentially the very good ones from his LM.

Oh and thanks all for your replies. I really hope to learn more.

Regards,

Ron

[HB]

To the best of my memory, the only description of the LM shot was that it seemed to have made a very good blend/balance of flavors, well rounded too.

You can use the same La Marzocco baskets in your Anita, but the temperature profile, brew pressure profile (including ramp up time), and water diffusion differences are significant. Eric's "flush and wait" technique produces the flattest temperature profile possible on the Anita. The brew pressure profile for an E61 is intentionally slower and stepped, which gives you a higher margin of error but does change the taste profile. And then there's the grinder: In all likelihood Terry had a Robur or similar, which could significantly narrow the in-cup results. Perhaps he would agree to rent you one for a couple weeks in the name of espresso science?

PS: For those following this thread, you may be interested in the parallel discussion on CG (Duplicating a La Marzocco "produce")

[Grant]

I forgot to add that info. I got the same Malabar Gold from him, a kilo worth, which he roasted the night before I flew back to the Philippines and I really am hoping I won't be wasting it with average shots as against potentially the very good ones from his LM.

Oh and thanks all for your replies. I really hope to learn more.

Regards,

Ron

If you are pulling Malabar Gold, you will also have to consider temperature as well, as I believe the desired temperature for MG is in the 207 degree range if I recall. Much hotter than your typical blend.

Grant