MKXR/MK7R Conical Burr- Worth the upgrade?

[mrgnomer]

Hi all. I haven't heard much about these new Macap's Chris' Coffee is carrying http://chriscoffee.com/products/home/grinders/mxkr

So what's the opinion? Would they give a better grind than a flat burr? Are they worth a serious look? Anyone going to do a review on them soon?

I'm asking mainly because I'm looking at upgrading to an A3 Sixties Elektra from a Silvia. I paired the Silvia with a Rocky doser and while the Rocky's o.k., from what I've read and my experiences with the Rocky a better grinder for the Silvia would have been a stepless Mazzer or Macap.

I don't want to go the save a few bucks route on an upgrade and Macap's conical burr looks to be an excellent grinder to pair with a machine like the Elektra. Anyone have any hands on experience with either MKXR or MK7R? Are they better grinders than a good flat burr? Would either one be a better choice to pair with a very good machine? What do you gurus think?

[jason_casale]

Hi while I am not familiar with the macap conical grinder. I have heard it was designed to be on par with the mazzer kony conical grinder. Conical is better than flat I believe it is more gentle in grind and shaves the bean per se. So if you can get a commercial conical do so. however I believe as Mr. Schomer does the best grind is from a combo of the 2 one flat burr and one conical inconjuction. DRM a company who developed grinders with this burr set was bought by the la cimbali company. Cimbali makes a max commercial grinder with the original drm burr set. But the key difference between it and the original drm grinder is that it is direct drive meaning the burr assembly is connected to the motor. The original drm was belt driven separating the motor from the burr assembly reducing heat to the coffee. In a high volume environment this would be a concern however in a low volume environment it really is not because the heat has a enough time to dissipate between grinds not effecting the coffee. You may want to look at the versalab grinder for personal low volume use it has the belt drive and the drm burr set but from first hand experience it is difficult to load bean into it and it can only grind a small volume at a time. Good luck with the grinder dilemma it is a tough one.

[mrgnomer]

Thanks for the advice, John.

Right now the versalab M3 is a bit out of my price range. I also trust the advice of David Schomer about a mixed burr system being the best. In his Espresso Coffee Professional Techniques book he also says that between flat burr grinders and conical burr he gets thicker, deeper, longer shots from a conical burr grinder. I imagine he's comparing commercial grinders but still it adds to the dilemma of flat vs. conical.

I'm going to look into the Cimbali grinder. I know Cimbali's flat burr was rated equally well against Mazzers and Macaps but I believe the review concluded that the micro adjustment of the Cimbali would make it more of a dedicated espresso grinder. I found a vendor for the Cimbali max but it advertises it as a conical burr, not a mixed burr grinder. It's also almost the cost of an M3 grinder as well.

[cannonfodder]

I have a Mazzer Mini and Cimbali Jr. Personal preference, I like the Cimbali better, but the Mazzer has more kitchen space visual appeal. Neither is conical. The conical machines I have seen have been way out of my price range, and most are way too big for my home, Versalab being the exception.

Grinder Burr Types Explained (flat, conical, DRM)
My HB Birthday Cimbali Arrived!!

[mrgnomer]

I have a Mazzer Mini and Cimbali Jr. Personal preference, I like the Cimbali better, but the Mazzer has more kitchen space visual appeal. Neither is conical. The conical machines I have seen have been way out of my price range, and most are way too big for my home, Versalab being the exception.

Grinder Burr Types Explained (flat, conical, DRM)
My HB Birthday Cimbali Arrived!!

Thanks for the advice, cannonfodder. After a few months with a Rocky I regretted not getting a Mazzer.

The thing about the MKXR and the beefier MK7R is that they offer a commercial grade conical burr set, worm gear stepless at a pretty good price. Sure, they're about $300-$400 more than a Mazzer Mini, Macap M4 or Cimbali Jr. but those grinders are about the same amount of money more than a Rocky. The question is are the conical burrs worth the extra price compared to flat burrs especially if you want to pair the grinder with a good espresso machine?

[another_jim]

The evidence from espresso lovers suggests that conical grinders tend to perform better than flats; with the advantage becoming more obvious as the roast level gets lighter. This is also true for regular brewing.

The DRM hybrid burr set I tested in the M3 (see "The Bench" section) does all its grinding in the flat section, the conical section only acting as an augur to crush the beans as they enter the flat burr set. The advantage is that the flat burrs have a much longer grinding surface, since they do not need to take up real estate for bean crushing.

In general, I believe the longer the coarse grinding section on a burr set, the better the grind. Even well mounted home grinders, like the Innova/Pavoni/Lux set work as well as small commercial flat burrs, since they have the same length grinding surface. True commercial conicals have the longest surfaces of all (the current Cimbali Max is a true burr grinder as far as I know).

Greg Scace had the same results comparing the Kony to the Cimbali Junior as I did in the M3 versus Mini comparison.

My experience with the M3 does not lead me to recommend it for anyone except people who cup coffee on a weekly basis, where the configuration comes into its own. The belt drive and burr mounts need to be tweaked every two weeks, and its usability for PFs is horrible. If I hadn't got addicted to the taste, I'd be back to the Mini in a flash. So the low cost of the Macap is very tempting, even to me.

There is one design problem with conical burrs housed in a conventional espresso grinder: the grinds exit. Since the rotation speed of these grinders is 400 to 600 RPM, rather than 1200 to 1800, the vanes that sweep the ground coffee out of the grind chamber into the doser move at 1/3 their intended speed. Therefore, grind clog-ups are a common issue to all the conical models. If you go for this or any other conical, get yourself a curved stick tool that can sweep out the chute whenever you grind, and check that the chute is easily accessible in the model you buy.

[mrgnomer]

There is one design problem with conical burrs housed in a conventional espresso grinder: the grinds exit. Since the rotation speed of these grinders is 400 to 600 RPM, rather than 1200 to 1800, the vanes that sweep the ground coffee out of the grind chamber into the doser move at 1/3 their intended speed. Therefore, grind clog-ups are a common issue to all the conical models. If you go for this or any other conical, get yourself a curved stick tool that can sweep out the chute whenever you grind, and check that the chute is easily accessible in the model you buy.

Thanks for the excellent info and advice. It's what I was hoping to hear and confirms some reading I've been doing.

The clog up issue with the low rpm'd conical burr is so obvious. Thanks for pointing it out. I grind for dose and brush out the chute and sweep clean between shots so I don't think clogging will be a problem. Actually, my concern is the size of the MKXR/MK7R: it's twice the height of my Rocky and it's going to seem a bit ridiculous grinding just for dose with such a beast.

So the reasoning behind using conical burrs to rough cut the beans in a mixed burr set and allow the flat burrs, which now can be cut for a greater fine grinding surface area, to finish the job, is that the conical burrs do a better job at rough cutting. Is it the quality of the rough grind that determines the final quality/eveness of the grind? Does that make the rough grind more important than the fine grind? Is that why conical burrs do the rough grinding and flat burrs finish off the job of grinding for fineness in a mixed burr set? This is interesting stuff

[another_jim]

On the DRM set the conicals do no cutting, crushing or anything else -- they augur the beans into the flat burr space, and the beans crush against each other as they enter. You will notice on burr pics, single burr sets have widely spaced claw like burrs at the entry point to get the beans into the ground surface. This usually takes up a lot of real estate (surprisingly so on the illustrated Macap burrs).

The point is that the simplest way to measure a grinder's upper potential for quality is how gently the beans are ground; this equates to how long the beans spend getting coarse ground. This is proportional to the width of the closely spaced burrs divided by the motor RPM. In the real world, jerkiness in the motor drive, imperfections on the burrs, misalignment, and vibration would all detract from the potential level a grinder could achieve.

[Jepy]

I always thought there was a certain amount of pre-breaking from the conical part in the DRM, so I took a closer look. The Versalab cone and cone ring are slightly different from the original DRM it was designed after. Maybe in the Versalab the cone is just an auger, but in the DRM, the cone and ring do a considerable amount of pre-breaking.



It's almost like a gauge, with the smaller beans slipping past without damage:

[Fr. John]

I don't want to step on any toes here, as I find this stuff fairly interesting, my nerdishness always wins out, especially in reading.

However, this thread brings up an interesting notion, to me at least, and that is what seems to be an ever increasing "audiophile" syndrome to the world of home prosumer espresso. I find it hard to believe that there can be any appreciable benefit from an $800 grinder, clearly not intended for home use, over its smaller $400+ brother. Furthermore I would venture to posit, ever so precariously, that not only is there no appreciable benefit for a home user but that this trend may actually hinder or cobble the end users results, i.e. the form will far outweigh the function and result in a less skilled individual who has all the greatest stuff. Just look at the really high end audiophile stuff and you'll know exactly what I mean.

I may be way off here though, it may just be my practicality talking.

[HB]

For the record, I don't endeavor to play the role of equipment pimp to the espresso addicts of the web.

However, you would need less than an hour to convince yourself that the Mazzer Mini is nowhere in the same league as the Robur, for example, speaking strictly in terms of the added demand on technique. That is the real secret behind the WDT - it compensates very nicely for grinder shortcomings. I don't have a firm opinion on the flat burr versus conical burr difference, though my brief tour with the Versalab M3 and weekly experience with Mazzer Roburs certainly supports claims by knowledgeable home baristas that the conicals are behind much of the improvement.

Currently I'm informally evaluating the La Marzocco GS3. Counter Culture has welcomed locals into their espresso lab for the past couple years, so I'm fairly familiar with LMs (e.g., Linea 3AV, FB70, and GB5). While upgrading to commercial machines generally reduces the demands on the barista, the opposite is true sometimes, as I've found for the lower "forgiveness factor" of the aforementioned LMs. That said, it's only day two and it's clearly evident the GS3 is in another class compared to its brothers. Whether that incremental improvement in forgiveness (which may be little more than a smaller gicleur and start/stop preinfusion, I honestly don't know) is worth the cost of three semi-commercial E61 rotary espresso machines is a debate between you and your wallet. For the majority, I agree with Chris' recommendations: Spend your money and time elsewhere.

Like the audiophiles' world, the cost increases non-linearly relative to the benefit. The good news is the top end stops much sooner for espresso gear. While you could drop $10K on espresso equipment for your home, few would see any appreciable benefit at less than one-quarter that amount because they are gated by their own skills (The problem is on the handle side of the portafilter is my mini-diatribe on the subject). According to some hardcore audiophiles I know, that same amount would be a nice down-payment on speaker cables.

[cannonfodder]

The thing one must keep in mind is that these high end grinders are designed for high end Barista's. By that, I mean that on my equipment with my modest skills, I may not notice the change. However, in the hands of a world class Barista, with world class equipment, the results will greatly differ.

Unfortunately, most new Home Baristas tend to upgrade their equipment thinking it will produce a better shot. While it usually leads to a slight increase in the cup, there is no substitute for practice and experience. A good Barista can make the most of what they have at hand. One day, I hope to reach the point that my equipment is the limiting factor in my espresso.

But until then, it is just cool to learn how and why things work.

[another_jim]

The cynic's observation on expensive equipment is that those who upgrade see a qualitative improvement, while those who don't say it is merely a frill or convenience.

My take, having gone through a lot of upgrades, is that on espresso machines, the biggest objective step is from a Krups level machine to a Silvia or other machine at that level, since this takes you from non-espresso to real espresso with an occasional godshot. Going further adds a lot of consistency to the average one off shot, and a lot of convenience when making multiple ones.

However, on the subjective side, I found my skills didn't really improve until I had the consistent feedback of my Tea. In the mean time, I do as well on my old Solis, when the Tea is disassembled for repair, but there was no way I could without having had the Tea for a few years.

With grinders for espresso, the big step is from home models to commercial models. The added step of commercial conicals is noticeable only over a long series of shots.

But I have a very surprising opinion on drip or press coffee using light roasted beans. There is a **huge** improvement using commercial conicals; the difference between the M3 and the Mini in cupping is much larger and more obvious than the difference between a Solis and a mini. I've done dozens of triangle tests now, and I can easily taste the difference each time.

[Psyd]

However, this thread brings up an interesting notion, to me at least, and that is what seems to be an ever increasing "audiophile" syndrome to the world of home prosumer espresso.

While there are many charlatans in the audio world selling first class snake oil, 'audiophile syndrome' might need some more definition. Those that can hear the difference and have the money will make far better choices than those that have the money but can't hear the difference. Those of us that can hear the difference but don't have the money (or would rather drop the twelve grand on espresso kit) can tell the difference between the good stuff and the glitzy crap will buy the stuff after it's 'out of style'. My Magnepans cost me almost nothing, and so did my Mazzer Majors. Both work just fine, and I learned how to lay a 5 foot ribbon driver in the bargain.
I understand what you're thinking, but a bigger motor means that there is more torque, which can drive larger burrs more slowly and still provide the same amount of grounds in a short time period. This also means an almost lifetime of use from just a coupla sets of burrs for most of us (the younger and/or more fanatical ones among us might go through four..) and an almost bulletproof design that will not require attention in most circumstances. Add to that that taking it apart to clean it is part of the design, and it really does make a difference. Plus any side benefits of a more consistent ground, grind, and fines in the cup.
There is a story, however, that a well known audiophile magazine invited the Siskel's and the Ebert's and the Roper's of the home audio world to come and critique some speaker cable. Monster, Decware, Wire World and all the big hitters were tested alongside a 10 gauge 'car audio special' and a 14 ga zipwire from a hardware store. Most could identify the zipwire as needing something, but most could also identify what ended up winning the shootout; it was the jumper cables from the bed of the pick-up truck of one of the techs running the gig.
I haven't seen the slight-of-tech in pro-sumer and high end consumer products in espresso that happens in audio. Pro-sumer, audiophile, or pro.

Now, coffee, that might be another story. There are beans that goe for 55 a pound, and the variations of the words 'Jamaica', 'Blue' and 'Mountain' that I've seen would make an audio huckster blush. And the guy that figures out how to sell all the finest coffee cherries that the catlike animals swiped and defecated all over his plantation, that guy is the king of all hucksters, I expect he's taken his fortune and is now selling high-end stereo (or more likely '7 point 1') in the upper west side...

[cannonfodder]

With grinders for espresso, the big step is from home models to commercial models. The added step of commercial conicals is noticeable only over a long series of shots.

But I have a very surprising opinion on drip or press coffee using light roasted beans. There is a **huge** improvement using commercial conicals; the difference between the M3 and the Mini in cupping is much larger and more obvious than the difference between a Solis and a mini. I've done dozens of triangle tests now, and I can easily taste the difference each time.

Interesting. So would upgrading from a Mazzer Mini or Cimbali Jr to a conical yield a bigger bang for the buck than an espresso machine upgrade?

[another_jim]

Interesting. So would upgrading from a Mazzer Mini or Cimbali Jr to a conical yield a bigger bang for the buck than an espresso machine upgrade?

Hard to say. The step from an E61 box to a top machine is small, so is the one from a commercial flat to a commercial conical. My sense of the best Synesso and LM shots is that they don't taste better than mine, but that they have better mouthfeel and body; my sense of the difference in flats to conicals is that it improves the taste without affecting the mouthfeel. So the two changes would be complementary and expensive. Since grinders cost less, the bigger bang for the unproportional buck, as always, remains with the grinder upgrade.

[gscace]

Interesting. So would upgrading from a Mazzer Mini or Cimbali Jr to a conical yield a bigger bang for the buck than an espresso machine upgrade?

Having done precisely that upgrade over the last several years I can tell you that the answer to your question is yes. There's not much difference between a mini and a cimbali jr except in terms of grinds speed and doser cleanliness. There's a big and stark difference in taste between either the Cimbali, or a Mazzer Super Jolly for that matter to a Mazzer Kony, which is a rather slow conical that takes about 15 secs to grind 20 gm of coffee. The cost of a Mazzer Kony is about 2.5 times the cost of a Cimbali Jr. That puts the cost about the same as any number of prosumer e-61 machines. The difference between the Cimbali and the Kony is much more IMO than the difference between a PID Silvia and an e-61. The differences between the Cimbali and the Kony are in the taste of the coffee. I find that the conicals accentuate brightness compared to flat-burr grinders, which produce coffee that taste more muted to me. Ask me what i mean by muted and I prolly will ham and haw a bit. But I had a Kony and a Cimbali Jr. side by side in my house for a while and I definitely preferred the range of tastes provided by the Kony. I have a Robur now, with the Kony at work. The Robur grinds 20 gm of coffee in 6 seconds. Taste is identical to the Kony's.

The same folks who are inclined to visit me and pull shots on my frankenLinea are welcome to perform back to back comparisons between a mini-e and a Robur in order to satisfy themselves that there is a discernible difference. You might want to ask Nick Cho about this as well, since I think he has replaced his Super Jollys with at least one Robur at Murky Coffee.

In my opinion, grinders are viewed as less sexy that the device from which the coffee spews. People seem much less inclined to spend money on them. But I think there is a lot of benefit to be obtained from using conicals, provided that one's coffee is fresh and of good quality.

-Greg

[Walter]

Interesting. So would upgrading from a Mazzer Mini or Cimbali Jr to a conical yield a bigger bang for the buck than an espresso machine upgrade?

Yes, yes, yes!

I have upgraded recently from a M4 to a Kony. From the difference between my Innova and my Macap, I expected a lot from that upgrade, but the experience so far even exceeded my expectations. Right now I'm into re-exploring my SOs...

[VS_DoubleShot]

this past year I've noticed a lot of threads where people are really splitting hairs. It seems like many forget about the skill and the bean and get into debates about machines and money.

I tend to agree with Fr John's post on this and I will add my own opinion that a lot of the "improvements" in the more expensive equipment are all in the head of the buyer because they want it to improve their shot so badly and have spent so much money.

[HB]

I dunno, I enjoy a bit of hairsplitting, and that's not a recent development.

I agree there's diminishing returns as the prices climb skyward. In espresso machines, you're paying for a lot of C's at the high end, e.g., capacity, consistency, and convenience. Sean Lennon called this evening and we were talking about this. He pointed out that the modifications he's made to his Brewtus (double PID, rotary pump, others that I cannot recall) increased the frequency of good shots but didn't "raise the bar" for the best one. I would think that the conical versus flat burrs debate would be a little easier to resolve, i.e., a few blind tests should indicate if there's a significant difference or not.