MWJB wrote:The EK-43 is reckoned to make more fines at espresso settings.

Confirmed on mine.

I got mine this week (3 years old, so burrs are broken in) haven't made to many coffees yet, but early tests show it creates more fines on setting 1. At setting 3 fines visually drop right down, although it flows faster, so I'm nutating to slow it down (Note: I think Mahlkonig has changed the scale, so my numbers might not line up with yours). It seems to be a dance. More experimentation may yield better options. Taste wise it's a new/different beast and I'm still playing, but it's promising and quite good. On par with my versalab, but certainly different. More testing is needed.

I ended up buying a group of three of them as a batch, so I'll have the opportunity to test all of them for manufacturing variation. As Terranova has stated multiple times, alignment is more important than burr type or size. I'd rather have a well aligned smaller burr, than a larger one in poor alignment. So keep that in mind when thinking about burr size.

I think that's worth repeating and stating differently:
Burr alignment makes a bigger difference than size or type. Until your burrs are aligned, you're comparing alignment in grinders more than you're comparing burr size or type. Take a look at this if you want to dive in a bit deeper:
http://nordicbaristacup.com/2013/09/nbc ... pope-bunn/


For example re alignment:
I measured then disassembled my Versalab. Though careful reassembly I was able to better align the burrs. Stock axial alignment was out by about 65um, now it's about 15um (including runout), while it could better still, its much better than before. The difference is surprisingly noticeable in the cup. It takes longer to blond, and I can run it a 2-3 seconds longer into blonding before getting bitter notes. I'm find I get more sweetness, and better/stronger/richer origin flavour. Shots are also much smoother and more balanced, with less sour and/or bitter notes. Without mentioning I'd realigned my versalab, friends have commented and asked what I've changed. Some thought the recipe/beans in the roast had changed. Even non coffee friends notice it tastes better

Another thing worth mentioning about burr size:
It should go without saying, but the bigger the burrs, the bigger the motor and housing, and thus the bigger the grinder. Not to mention higher cost. The EK really is a giant (bigger than the pictures suggest). It's not the most home friendly sized machine. Same could be said with the Bunn G series (although they do cut down nice), and the Ditting's.


Hope this helps.

shawndo wrote:... a 68mm conical has more cutting surface area than a 68mm flat. So you would need a bigger flat to be equivalent.

I used to think so too, then I saw this: Fines cutting path the same on 83mm Robur conical vs 83mm Major flats, both are the same:
Best home espresso grinder at any budget

The measurements in that pic seem to compare the vertical component of the conical path but not the path distance itself, the calipers don't seem to be in line with the path...

I appreciate the input on this. For me I believe the "Home Barista" part of this talk is key. In my mind a good home grinder has to meet three criteria: First, it has to make good espresso. Second, it needs to aesthetically fit in the home. Finally, it should be convenient to use. I have a background in engineering, so I appreciate an elegant design. To me it seems grinders like the Mini E and the Forte meet these criteria well.

When people have a giant Robur with the hopper taken off and weird mods that push the beans in and the grinds out, it just does not look like a good idea in the home and I personally have a hard time believing they are getting that much better espresso out of it to justify it. If the mods made the grinder better you would think you could sell it for more then you bought it for. I would argue that a lot of these mods actually decrease the value of the grinder.

Does a giant walk in commercial oven make a better loaf of bread then a home sized oven? Maybe the temperature is more stable and it makes it easier to be consistent, but with a little extra care I think you can make just as good a loaf in a home sized oven. This is what I'm talking about with grinders, maybe giant burrs are more consistent if you're in a cafe making hundreds of drinks a day, but if your only making a few it seems completely unnecessary to have such overkill.

I'm not judging anyone who has a moded titan grinder in their home, I think people can spend their money however they like. I've certainly spent a lot having an Olympia Maximatic, an Olympia Cremina, a Mazzer Mini, and an HG one. I'm just trying to see if there is a psychological component to the thought that the espresso is so much better using giant burrs to make a few shots of espresso per day.

I don't consider myself to be a super taster by any means. I consider myself to be average to below average in regards to knowledge / money spent on equipment when compared to many of the frequent posters on this forum. With that in mind, here are my observations. I went from a mini e to a k30 vario. I noticed light years of improvement in regards to consistency, clumping, channeling, and grinding speed. Regarding flavor, I also noticed a difference. I don't believe it was a placebo effect because specific coffees I did not favor on the mini became much more enjoyable on the vario. So to answer your question, I think yes, to a point, a home user probably could derive taste benefit from larger burrs. However, I think that benefit is correlational. As previously mentioned, with larger burrs, you get bigger bearings, motor etc. I think each of those factors adds to the overall experience of an improvement in the cup. I think that it is larger(no pun intended) than just burrs. It is the complete package. But, I also think that diminishing returns and marketing also play a larger roll than many would like to admit.

cnworld wrote: In a home setting it seems speed of grinding (within reason) and heat dissipation are none issues if you're making less than 10 drinks an hour.

Agreed.

cnworld wrote:It seems to me that you could take Robur or EK43 burrs, shrink them way down and be able to use a smaller motor and get the same results in the cup, you would just not be able to make as many cups as quickly. In a home environment this wouldn't matter.

At least one data point seems to confirm this: Nobody I know has been able to taste a consistent difference between the HG-one units that have the 83mm burrs versus the ones they sold (like mine) with the smaller, 71 mm burrs. So perhaps if all things truly were equal you might be right.

But in the real world, such a product does not exist. The best engineered and built smaller grinder I know of is the Lido 2, and while it makes pretty good espresso, there is a notable step down between it and the HG-one in that context. (It significantly outperforms the HG-one for brewing, however, especially for immersion methods.)

cnworld wrote:As a background, I have a Vario, and HG-One that was modified by Stephen Sweeney and a Mazzer Mini E. Of these, by far my favorite for espresso is the Mini E. I like it because it is clean, looks good in a home setting, is easy to use, and is built like a tank, so I could potentially hand it down to my kids. Though I like the ingenuity that went into the HG-One, I find it to be a pain to use with the weighing, WDT, needing the space to turn the crank, and most importantly I did not think shots tasted any better from it than my Mini E.

Whether taste differences are detectable depends on many things: What coffees you prefer to make espresso with, what roast levels you like, your flavor preferences, your extraction parameters, and the sensitivity of your palate. If you like the Mini best in terms of ergonomics and you can't taste a difference, then I think you have all the answers you need for your own use. Personally, I found that the HG-one significantly outperformed my Vario in the cup, to the point that I sold off the Vario rather than keep it as a back-up electric grinder, as I had originally planned. The difference was most notable with straight shots of moderate to lightly roasted single-origin coffees, in which the HG-one shots had an edge in terms of sweetness, acidity, and clarity of aromatic components. But if we were pulling ristretto shots of comfort-food blends, I doubt I could have tasted a difference.

The other advantage I found with the HG-one was that its settings were more stable over time, and it was easier to dial in a new coffee because changes in grind size behaved more predictably across coffees and roast levels. Having never used a Mini, I can't comment on that aspect of its use personally, but I know that the TGP folks noticed that large conical grinders were generally the easiest to dial in when using a new coffee.

cnworld wrote: Does a giant walk in commercial oven make a better loaf of bread then a home sized oven? Maybe the temperature is more stable and it makes it easier to be consistent, but with a little extra care I think you can make just as good a loaf in a home sized oven. This is what I'm talking about with grinders, maybe giant burrs are more consistent if you're in a cafe making hundreds of drinks a day, but if your only making a few it seems comletely unneccessary to have such overkill.

I think you did not pay enough attention to "Randy G's" post while you are having your own opinion of course.

Randy G. wrote:What you get with the high-end bigger burrs in commercial grinders is larger, high precision bearings, massive burr mounts, and other parts that all combine to give higher precision in alignment. My wife, who has two words to describe coffee noticed the difference in the cup from the first taste. There's more to bigger grinders than just bigger burrs.

cnworld wrote:I'm not judging anyone who has a moded titan grinder in their home, I think people can spend their money however they like. I've certainly spent a lot having an Olympia Maximatic, an Olympia Cremina, a Mazzer Mini, and an HG one. I'm just trying to see if there is a psychological component to the thought that the espresso is so much better using giant burrs to make a few shots of espresso per day.

There is no psychological component in bigger burrs, (again see Randy G post) it is not the burr geometry by itself, but the built quality which is mostly much better in these grinders.
Sure there will be a difference in taste by different burrs / grinders, a different grind profile will lead to a different taste although alignment plays a bigger part. (IMHO)
With your Olympia machines it is a bit different, because you have paid about 3 times the price just for their brand name or / and aestethics.
No offence to Olympia of course, but there is nothing magic inside which is worth the money others than described above.

What about the engineering aspects of grinding? As I mentioned in an earlier post, using the Mazzer line as an example, as you go up in price and size, it seems the engineer's goal was to increase consistency of output over time in higher and higher volume environments. It does not seem taste is taken into account. Mazzer has a lot of history making grinders, so it seems they would know what works and what doesn't, and if it was obvious that bigger burrs always make a better grind regardless of the volume of beans ground, then they would only make Robur burrs or comparable and develop ways to shrink down the motor and casing for lower volume home use.

When you look at espresso machines like the Slayer single group, Speedster, or GS3, it seems the engineers made their design with the point of effecting flavor in the cup. Pressure profiling does nothing to increase volume, in fact it decreases it. It's point is to effect flavor. Grinding innovations seem to always indicate less heating or higher output. It's this engineering difference that makes me question the perceived idea that bigger is better with grinders in low volume settings like a home.

[creative nickname] wrote: Having never used a Mini, I can't comment on that aspect of its use personally, but I know that the TGP folks noticed that large conical grinders were generally the easiest to dial in when using a new coffee.

Back when I had my Rocky, I would have to dial in my grinder everyday because the setting which made the best shot one day would change everyday. This caused a lot of sink shots and waste. Then when I had my super jolly, same thing, it made better shots than the Rocky, but had to be dialed in on a day to day basis, thus wasting a lot of coffee. Single dosing a Robur, not only makes clearly superior shots with no WDT or fussing at all, but I haven't adjusted the grind setting in months while using various blends and single origins. Especially with single origins, I have been able to coax out flavors with the robur that I couldn't get with the super jolly. In summary, a giant conical grinder has made my espresso routine much more efficient and enjoyable.

Terranova,
I appreciate your response, I know that you know grinders and have looked at the M3 you modified and think it's a work of art. I think both you and Stephen Sweeney do an excellent job of modifying grinders for use at home. I did notice that you sold the M3 though. I'm more referring to people who in my mind hack apart a Robur or Kony with yogurt containers and the like and force them into a home environment thinking that they're making a better shot of espresso in the morning.

I know the argument can be made that I paid too much for my Olympia machines for what I'm getting. We all have to justify our purchases and though it sounds cliche, to me I look at them like Eames designed furniture or a Rolex watch. Though a Timex or Casio may keep time as well as a Rolex, the craftsmanship, timeless design, quality, feel, and history of a Rolex make it worth the money for a lot of people. I think Olympia machines are beautifully designed for home use. I like looking at them, I enjoy using them, and I think they make an excellent espresso. I also appreciate how timeless the Olympia design is. I believe I will keep them the rest of my life. A Slayer Single Group, Speedster, or GS3 may make a better espresso, but I bet in 5-10 years something better will come out and the electronics will fail and be difficult to replace. I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong, I just feel that some of the "home barista" part of this forum is lost when people are basically setting up a commercial cafe in their house to make a few espresso drinks per day. I'm questioning if this commercial equipment is the only way approach with grinders is valid in a home setting.