Following the Titan Grinder Project (TGP), many home baristas have an increased albeit irrational interest in large conical grinders. Obvious disadvantages of hulking grinders like the Mazzer Robur are their size and cost, especially compared to other TGP candidates like the Cimbali Max Hybrid and Mazzer Super Jolly, who are much more kitchen and wallet friendly. Another conical grinder manufacturer, Compak, made a guest appearance in the TGP, thanks to Ken Fox and Jim Schulman (here and here). Lately the Compak K10 has garnered interest in the forum:

Compak K10 WBC or Mazzer Robur
Compak K10 WBC grinder - user report

The K10 sports conical burrs almost as large as the Robur (Compak's 68mm versus 71mm for Mazzer's 120V model). Compak's motor and housing are smaller, it's lighter, and a shorter hopper is available; even so, it's not a small grinder and won't fit under standard cabinets. I had seen this grinder before during the SCAA barista competitions; Compak has made some minor tweaks to the appearance and usability since their initial sponsorship. I'll return to the specifics like size, ergonomics, etc.; let's get back to the taste test.

Jim at 1st-line generously provided an evaluation model Compak K10 WBC:


(Click image for more details)

Counter Culture Coffee offered to host our side-by-side comparison using their Aficionado Espresso Blend, Mazzer Robur, and La Marzocco three group. I arrived early to setup and dial in the two grinders. Maybe the espresso gods will be looking more kindly on me in 2009 since dialing in was lickety-split fast. The grind setting for the K10 was the same as I had already dialed at home and there was no adjustment during the entire session. The Mazzer Robur was also very close, requiring a small tweak of a few millimeters.

Often on Fridays, the coffee is too fresh for great espresso, but Nathan had set some aside specifically for this test and the pours were delightfully easy. The taste test was less formal than previous times, i.e., we made no effort to randomize samples. Instead participants were simply handed two cups and asked to evaluate. It didn't take long to agree that the differences between the Compak and Mazzer were minor, though potential patterns did emerge from our small sample (I had the advantage of already having tested the K10 for a couple weeks, so I pulled all the shots and didn't sample until the very end).

Next I will post my taste impressions and thoughts on the grinder's ergonomics compared to the Mazzer. In the meantime, I invite the participants to post theirs...

HB wrote:Next I will post my taste impressions and thoughts on the grinder's ergonomics compared to the Mazzer. In the meantime, I invite the participants to post theirs...

I can't compare the Compak to the Mazzer since I have no hands-on experience with the Robur, even though I have drunk shots coming from it in cafes (principally in Vancouver BC), and have never had shots made from the same beans at the same time to allow a comparison of both grinders. I would not be surprised if there was a tastable difference between the Mazzer and the Compak, but I doubt that this difference would rise above the level of differences among different batches of the same beans from the same roaster.

I have had one comparison with one bean that I clearly prefer from my Cimbali Maxs than from the Compak; it is the Ethiopian Worka, a current bean from Klatch that has become my current fave for this year for single origin espresso. Coming out of the Max the Worka seems to make a rounder and fruitier espresso than I get from the Compak, which is more "angular" and coarse. But I can't come up with any better descriptors and I haven't found the same to be true of other beans I've run through these grinders (generally not at the same time, however). I do like the Compak a lot and use it daily.

Ergonomically the Compak is easy to use and easy to get used to. The doser works well. I am able to salvage the grinds from the grind chute with a chop stick after each grinding and to use them in my shots, cutting down on the waste.

My sense is that in the high end home market for an "ultimate" home grinder, there are a lot of people who are trying to decide between the Compak K10 and the Cimbali Max. To my view these are the two standout grinders in this (relatively large) price range, because they probably offer the most bang for the buck in the range. It would be great if you could convince Chris to send you a Max for a head to head comparison, since the results of this comparison might be of just as much (or more) interest to the readers here than the comparison with the Robur. This is not to criticize the Robur, but it is altogether larger and much more expensive than either the Max or the Compak, and because of this the Robur is less likely to adorn the kitchen counters of very many home baristas.

ken

another_jim wrote:Taste comparisons between the Max and Compak WBC are fairly moot, since the difference in their form factor is a much bigger deal. The Compaks are similar in setup to the Mazzers, it's primarily for espresso, but one can single dose, and make large grind adjustments, and so use it for other kinds of brewing on occasion. The Max is a pure espresso grinder, unsuitable for any form of multitasking.

I see the Max as being easier to make small incremental grind adjustments on than the Compak, but in reality neither are difficult to adjust (within the espresso range), and neither will need frequent adjustment, an added advantage of these grinders (and other conicals such as the Robur). I don't see either the Compak or the Max as being well suited for frequent blend changes, although I'm sure Jim disagrees.

As to the form factors, this only makes a difference if you will put the grinder under a cabinet, in which case the Compak probably will not work and the Cimbali Max Hybrid would fit. Otherwise, their respective countertop "footprints" are not dissimilar. Ergonomically they are different but you will get used to either of them. They do look different, and in my opinion the Cimbali would fit in a little better in the typical domestic kitchen. Given all the espresso related junk we tend to have in our kitchens however, the impact of on or other of these grinders would probably be minimal.

I do think that head to head taste comparisons would be of interest. Assuming one could accommodate either grinder in a given space, the price difference between these grinders would argue for either an ergonomic benefit, a taste benefit, or both, in order to justify the added cost of the Compak over the Max, or for that matter, of the Robur over either of the others.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:[snipped] It would be great if you could convince Chris to send you a Max for a head to head comparison, since the results of this comparison might be of just as much (or more) interest to the readers here than the comparison with the Robur. This is not to criticize the Robur, but it is altogether larger and much more expensive than either the Max or the Compak, and because of this the Robur is less likely to adorn the kitchen counters of very many home baristas.

ken

Actually Ken, I think keeping this to the Robur and Compak serves a purpose. That is, if the Compak offers taste nearly equal in "quality" to that of the Robur, many folks wanting a PURELY conical grinder (for whatever reason) would have an alternative at a much cheaper price, assuming the Compak's ergonomics works for them. Size being a major factor.
I believe that's Dan's point in limiting the comparison.
That way, it's more of an "oranges and oranges" comparison.
Just my take.

IMAWriter wrote:Actually Ken, I think keeping this to the Robur and Compak serves a purpose. That is, if the Compak offers taste nearly equal in "quality" to that of the Robur, many folks wanting a PURELY conical grinder (for whatever reason) would have an alternative at a much cheaper price, assuming the Compak's ergonomics works for them. Size being a major factor.
I believe that's Dan's point in limiting the comparison.
That way, it's more of an "oranges and oranges" comparison.
Just my take.

Actually, my take is that Dan was sent a Compak K10 by a site supporter who wanted a write up done about the grinder (a good move for the site supporter and for our readership also, no complaints with that). The venue where the testing is occurring just so happens to have a Robur in it, so the comparison more or less makes itself.

If another site supporter, e.g. Chris, wants to extend the comparison, and if the first site supporter who supplied the Compak isn't upset, then I see no reason why such a 3 way comparison wouldn't benefit the readership more than a two way comparison. For economic reasons and due to its size, hardly anyone here will actually buy a Robur, yet I think that there are a number of people here who would buy a Compak K10 or a Max hybrid.

ken

Just to weigh in here FWIW. I was at the session last Friday and found it quite rewarding - a lot of great espresso for little work on my part I had a hard time tasting much difference between the two grinders. With the exception of one flight that Dan had a little problem with they were pretty much identical. Push come to shove I would probably say the Compak's shots were a bit brighter but I would need much more time with the grinders to say for sure.
I did take Dan's Robur home and ran it against my Macap M4. Now there is definitely a difference between these two. The grind consistency and distinct lack of clumping does improve the shots I pulled on both the Dalla Corte and the La Spaziale. Much more consistent and with less fussing than my M4. Of course there is a modest price difference as well.
I hope to get the Compak over here after I've had a chance to use the Robur for a few days. I should have a better perspective on the two grinders then.

Cheers

Ian

Split Ken's follow-on discussion to Problem with channeling? Dose less and grind finer. Jim offers a closing comment in the new thread related to this thread, so I've copied it below for easy reference.

another_jim wrote:In these forums, we read a lot of opinions on equipment. The ones written by inexperienced people we all take with a grain of salt. However, we also have disagreements among very experienced people. When these happen, it is usually worth paying attention to what each person wants out of espresso (this is why I try to be upfront about my obsessions). In this grinder case, large planars like the Caimano or Vario have earned some accolades and some raspberries. So it is likely that they work well for some espresso styles, and not so well for others. Big conicals are on everyone's list as solid performers (although there's rarely any raving about godshots), so it is likely that they are useful across the espresso spectrum.

woodchuck wrote:[snipped]
I did take Dan's Robur home and ran it against my Macap M4.
I hope to get the Compak over here after I've had a chance to use the Robur for a few days. I should have a better perspective on the two grinders then.

Cheers

Ian

Wish I had Dan for a "neighbor!"

Yep, Dan Kehn and Counter Culture Coffee. Life is good

Ian

As you will be using these grinders at home, your observations will be most interesting and useful.

I just asked this question on the "true doubles" thread, where people were suggesting something like second mortgages for espresso equipment, but I see it belongs here.

Has anyone been given two shots of espresso and been able to tell which came from which of two grinders without prior knowledge? Its easy to taste differences when you know which grinder was used beforehand.

I'd like to see Dan, and some others with lots of cupping experience (Jim?), have a go at this. Prepare two shots from two competing grinders, and tell which shot came from which. When its been done correctly approx. 30 times (or a statistically-valid number out of 30) you will be confidently able say there is a difference in TASTE between the two grinders.

PC

da gino wrote:I had four shots - two from each grinder, and three of them were remarkably similar, all earning A's. The fourth was quite good, but had a slight note of bitterness. It would have been a B. It was different enough that it crossed my mind that Dan might have had secretly had two different coffees in the machines, but the next set of shots put that question to rest for me. I hadn't watched the pour, but Dan told me when I commented on the shot, that there had been a little bit of channeling on that shot. If I'd ordered it in a cafe, I would have been thrilled, but in head to head with the others it didn't quite match up. That shot was pulled from the Robur, but so was my favorite of the other three shots. The two shots from the Compak were almost identical to each other as far as I could tell. The best shot from the Robur was slightly sweeter and slightly more syrupy than the other shots.

I could never expect 3/4 shots at home to be so similar, but I don't know if I should attribute that inconsistency to the grinder, the machine, or me (my guess is the last two are the biggest contributors more than the grinder).

In summary, from a taste perspective, I'd have to learn a lot more about coffee and repeat the experiment over a sequence of days to have a strong preference for one grinder over the other. I can't imagine regretting either one from a taste perspective, but I also didn't walk out regretting that I'd bought the Macap even though walking in I'd feared I might (price, size, wife acceptance etc all make it an excellent choice).

My point above is that if the grinder is ID'd before the taste test its just not valid. It needs to be done by comparing shots without knowing which grinder was used.

peacecup wrote:My point above is that if the grinder is ID'd before the taste test its just not valid. It needs to be done by comparing shots without knowing which grinder was used.

Usually I would randomize cups, but in this case I simply handed tasters two cups and asked for a comparison without mentioning which was which. However, if they were paying attention, they would know which espresso came from which grinder. Later discussion revealed that they were not paying attention.

As the posts above report, the Compak K10 WBC and Mazzer Robur produce a very similar taste profile. I think with practice I could tell their espressos apart, assuming it was an espresso blend that reveals subtleties. Once I get both grinders side-by-side again, I will do some blind tastings as I did for the Titan Grinder Project.

peacecup wrote:
Has anyone been given two shots of espresso and been able to tell which came from which of two grinders without prior knowledge? Its easy to taste differences when you know which grinder was used beforehand.

I'd like to see Dan, and some others with lots of cupping experience (Jim?), have a go at this. Prepare two shots from two competing grinders, and tell which shot came from which. When its been done correctly approx. 30 times (or a statistically-valid number out of 30) you will be confidently able say there is a difference in TASTE between the two grinders.

PC

Of course this is the sort of experiment I've been involved in numerous times with my two Cimbali Juniors, studying various things such as rotary pump vs vibe pump, coffee frozen for various lengths of time vs. never frozen, a grinder with brand new burrs vs. an identical one with older burrs, etc. Jim has designed and analyzed all these studies, and participated personally in some of them. This sort of testing is very time consuming and very arduous, as our taste buds fatigue rapidly when presented with multiple espresso shot pairs over any set period of time.

One of the keys to performing this sort of blind tasting study is to decide WHAT to study in the first place. This decision must be predicated based upon the likelihood of showing any worthwhile results after all the effort has been expended.

This sort of a study when it is done to the extent that you can get statistically valid data is a huge chore. My opinion is that comparing grinders such as the Compak K10 and the Robur, would end up showing that with any "doable" number of shot pairs, that few people other than supertasters could distinguish between them in a simultaneous blind shot tasting study. At the outset I would consider the probability of getting a result showing a difference, as so small, that I would not even attempt to perform such a study.

This is the sort of evaluation that I think is better done in a "descriptive" manner than with the goal of getting statistically valid data. The differences between a Compak K10 and a Robur are sufficiently small that it would be hard to come to definite conclusions, and you, the reader, is best off getting presented with contrasting points of view and trying to figure out for yourself what if any of it impresses you. On the other hand, the differences between a large Conical such as the Compak or Robur, and your typical high end home planar grinder (Mazzer Mini or Cimbali Junior) are so enormous that they cannot be missed. I would still prefer not to study those differences with a blind tasting study as there are problems with this method that are hard to deal with.

What do I mean by the above? What I'm getting at is that anyone with hands on experience with a large conical (or a Cimbali Max) who also works with or has worked a lot with smaller planar grinders, KNOWS that these grinders classes are different. When you make shots from a small planar grinder, you get a huge range of results, and you pitch a lot of your shots. You also have to constantly adjust the planar grinder in order to avoid having too many sink shots.

With the large conical or a Cimbali Max, few shots go down the drain and the shots have a remarkable amount of consistency. You end up adjusting the Max or conical about 10% as often as you adjust the small planar. You just get to the point where you expect to have good shots and not to have to constantly adjust the Max or Conical, because it is just THAT obvious.

So, in doing a comparison between a small planar (Mazzer Mini class) vs. a conical type grinder, you are going to be forced to pitch the shot pair a fair percentage of the time because you will conclude that the shot from the small planar grinder was "sub-par." This will bias the results in the favor of the small planar grinder, because you are only going to use the "best shots" that come from the small planar and toss the rest of them. As a result of this you have shifted the goalposts; instead of comparing the output of the small planar vs. the conical or Max, you are selecting out only the good shots from the planar and comparing those to the conical.

The other option would be to take all the shots pairs, good or bad, and compare them. In that case the results from such a test can be predicted in advance without even doing the study, because as I said above, anyone with experience using both types of grinders already knows that the conical/Max will "win," just as result of having used these grinder types. This is because there will be enough sink shots produced by the small planar grinder that will obviously get low scores, that one knows the results in advance. And I am very loath to study anything whose results I already know in advance, since there are so many other interesting things to study with this blind tasting technique, and so little time to actually study them.

ken

da gino wrote:I agree. I definitely did not know which cup was which and intentionally did not pay attention to if the grinder on the right went in the right portafitler and if that one then was handed to me on the right or left. It certainly wasn't hidden from me, but there was so much else going on that I didn't have any trouble keeping myself in the dark.

I also agree that I'd be unlikely to be able to consistently guess which grinder was which without practice, but that with practice it might be possible. It would certainly be fun trying!

"Da"...considering that you could discern no major, or even minor differences, and equally enjoyed shots from both grinders, I ask "why spend a lot of time trying to quantify what does not need to to be quantifiable?"
If the ergonomics of the K10 works for you, and the price is 1/2 (approx), it would seem that it would be more a "pride of ownership" thing to have a massive Robur in a home. Yes, a Mazzer is beyond reproach as far as build quality, but I've read that Compak has gone to great lengths to correct problems, and their customer service seams to be good.
I just think sometimes we fuss with this stuff just to fuss with it, as if to justify our over the top espresso related purchases.
If I had the coin, I'd buy the K10, love it till I didn't love it anymore, sell it for a fair price and move on.
Of course, that's the rational part of me speaking. The irrational part would say "own the biggest grinder in the neighborhood!"


EDIT...the "your" mentioned here is used pejoratively

IMAWriter wrote: The irrational part would say "own the biggest grinder in the neighborhood!"

Robert, I have a Mazzer Mini, and I suspect that even it is the largest grinder in MY neighborhood.