zoomchick wrote:I am still tweaking what settings work best for my Salvatore One but my Vario sprays pretty wide. There are alot of grounds of either side of the grinder. After 14 seconds, its a mess and I have come to putting a flexible cutting board underneath to help with the clean up.
Any suggestions?

Try a different coffee.

I've had a Vario for about a month. I've found that the static jumping grounds can be attributed to the coffee that you are using. Lighter roasts fall beautifully into the PF, but I have had some darker roasts literally flying everywhere.

There's been a longish thread over on CG about the result Dan (ddr) and I got comparing the Vario with the Compak and the Mini.

First off, I'd like to thank all those who had good words to say about my integrity as a coffee taster. My membership on CG has expired, so I'm saying thank you here.

Second I notice there's a good deal of skepticism about the test result. This is of course a good thing, all purported taste tests should be approached with extreme skepticism.

However, as usual, I think there is the usual fundamental misunderstanding about comparison tests -- you don't need a lot of tests if it's not close, and you need a huge number of it is very close. In short, the result against the Compak doesn't mean much, but the result against the Mini is meaningful.

But here's where the skepticism comes in. What exactly does the result mean? The Mini is also the only grinder that got blanked in the Can it Beat the Robur show; so maybe I just don't much like the way it tastes. Dan (the HB one) and I were talking about this yesterday. He pointed out I frequently use the word "angular" in conjunction with the Mini's taste. So here's a personal admission. I do not like Vivace's espresso, or any of the other "in your face" styles of making shots (although I admire Schomer's chutzpah calling the blend Dolce). I want espresso shots to be laid back, mellow and sweet. If they also have well defined flavors, so much the better.

So here it is, maybe the Vario I'm testing is a better grinder than the Mini; or maybe it's the more laid back grinder compared to the Mini's (to my palate) boom box style of overamped top and bottom flavors. But in either case, I have little doubt they are different tasting, easily distinguishable, grinders.

A few bits after a week with the Vario:

Static:
I didn't notice any during the test. But over the next few days it got worse and worse, regardless of coffee or humidity. I removed the burr, emptied out the grind chamber, which held around 2.5 grams of coffee, reassembled, and the static was gone. By a few days later, it was back, and I had to repeat the procedure. So cleaning the burr chamber is a temporary fix.

Grind Retention
Bit of mystery here. The burr chamber had around 2.5 grams of grind in it when I cleaned it to control the static. Yet the very next time I used it, putting 15 grams in got me 15 grams out. So where is this waste coffee coming from? I'm guessing the grind area slowly, but progressively, gums up with ground coffee, and at some point the grinder's performance suffers. It may be that the grinder needs frequent cleaning to keep it at best performance levels people have observed, and that if one doesn't, the performance drops to the mediocre levels others have observed.

A Second Look at the Burrs
The Vario's burr set doesn't look particularly good. Here is a comparison against the Mini:



Using the measurement technique I used to for the Titan Grinder thread, the Mini's burr length is 7.1mm, already rather small, while the Vario's is 4.3mm, which is a miserable number, smaller than the tiniest peppermill or hand grinder. But in the taste test, the Vario beat the Mini, and this is a result I stand by. So what gives?

A second look at the burrs shows that the angle of the Vario's burrs is much more offset, while those on the Mini are much more along the radius. So while the Vario burrs only take up an annulus of 4.3mm, whereas the Mini's occupy 7.1mm, the longest Vario burr is 10.5mm in length, while the longest Mini burr is only 10.0mm in length.

Does this matter? I think so, and I think the measures I gave during the TGP may be inaccurate because of this. The beans are forced from the inside to the outside of the burr plate by the ridges. If the ridges are relatively straight, a small turn angle forces the bean from one end to the other. If the ridges are as oblique as the Vario's, a much larger turn angle is required to get the bean from inside to out. In other words, by putting the burrs at a very oblique angle, Mahlkoenig created a slightly longer grinding path than the Mini's while using a smaller burr.

I think this partly explains why the Vario performs as well as it does, despite the small burr size.

It's late and it has been a long day, so let me apologize up front and admit I have not read all the posts in this thread. I am very interested in Jim's evaluation and his thoughts on the Baratza Vario. I have had a Vario for a month more or less. I think the sn is less than 10. I have been using a Macap M4, so that is my reference.

Overall, I am very impressed with the Vario. The grind quality is silky smooth compared to the Macap and no clumping at all. As for the pf holder, I quit using it for the moment. Sometimes there is static cling and it gets messy. It is easy enough for me to grind into the bin. I have noticed a minute amount of wasted grinds. I wonder how profound the impact on the quality of espresso is from a minute amount of stale grinds retained in the vario compared to the greater quantity retained in the Macap. I can definitely see an improvement in quality when I pull a shot. I like the design, especially the micro and macro adjustments. Going from espresso to drip and back again is too easy. It is well engineered and nicely built.

Forget the price of the grinder (don't let price cloud the debate). No matter what it costs, thus far, it performs brilliantly.

jerry

ddr wrote:Thanks for posting this Jim, and thanks for your hospitality. I was very glad to have my belief that the Vario is a great espresso grinder confirmed with blind testing.

Rob, I know you are waiting to hear about the Vario used for French Press; sorry, we were too wiped out after the 24 shots to do any more I left the Vario with Jim for more testing as my press is packed up in a box and I will be out of town for a bit.

What!!!??? Wiped out after only 24 shots?
Pansy
Any new purchase brings with it some angst, occasionally buyers remorse, and in my case PANIC.
I pleased that you will not carry that burden into that long night.
I'm betting that Jim has long since become immune to copious amounts of espresso. This was a walk in the park for him. In defense of all equipment, it has been, and always will be the creature in front of the PF that most often makes or breaks the result. (I didn't make that up, but wish I had)
I will be taking as good look at the Vario in Atlanta while at the SCAA. Drinking as many shots as I can hold, as well.

tinseljim wrote:It's interesting to hear that taste-wise there isn't much in it between good quality grinders wrt FP/drip. Would a possible test be to find the sweet spot for the Vario FP and then find the sweet spot for the SJ FP and compare them?

FWIW, I've owned two cherry SJ. and my Maestro did every bit as good a job at coarser setting. I'll bet mainly due to the fact that the Mazzer SJ was MEANT to be an espresso grinder, not the Maestro.

Well, those of you who think Jim Schulman is crazy might need to throw a few more tasters into the bunch with him. This weekend, longtime CGer and HBer Jon Rosenthal invited Houston coffee folks to an old-fashioned grinder shoot-out. Jon provided 3 grinders--an older-model Mahlkönig K30, a Macap M7K, and a Super Jolly. I brought the Baratza Vario review unit, and Bill Giffen of Hopson Coffee provided the beans and a GS3 as the test machine. Since there's only so much coffee one can drink in an afternoon, we had a "final 4" style shoot-out, where it went (winner (winner A B) (winner C D)).

You can read all about the details of the test in Jon's write-up on CoffeeGeek. In short, the M7K smashed the K30 in a single round (luck?). Of course, it was just one round--we didn't really end up testing the K30 yesterday. In the second round, the Super Jolly and the Vario went neck and neck. 2 shots in a row where the shots were virtually identical. I know I refrained from picking a preference on at least one of the sets; both were very close. We advanced the Vario in the interest of giving it good testing.

The final round matched the M7K with the Vario, and though I think Jon mentioned only 2 tests, I believe we had 3 pairs; one of them we might not have officially voted on. Anyway, I recall the first pair being for me a confirmation of the conical stereotype. The better shot had more distinct flavors, and far superior sweetness. I preferred it, and guessed it was the M7K, and I was right. Then, next pair, it was the same again, except the winner, whose shot was virtually the same to my palate as the winner from the other round, ended up being the Vario. I believe the final pair was too close to call. Jon can correct me on this if he remembers better how this went.

I believe Jon felt that the Vario was somewhat more finicky than the M7K, but obviously it performed great at its best, certainly matching the best shots of the M7K.

It was an awesome, caffeinated afternoon, and I want to thank Jon, Bill, Mitchell, and Andrew for the great help in the Vario review. I think that's all from me for now; I have another shootout in mind in the near future (Vario vs. Super Jolly vs. Robur E on Synesso Cyncra), and hopefully even more interesting tests later in the month. Stay tuned...

shadowfax wrote:The final round matched the M7K with the Vario, and though I think Jon mentioned only 2 tests, I believe we had 3 pairs; one of them we might not have officially voted on. Anyway, I recall the first pair being for me a confirmation of the conical stereotype. The better shot had more distinct flavors, and far superior sweetness. I preferred it, and guessed it was the M7K, and I was right. Then, next pair, it was the same again, except the winner, whose shot was virtually the same to my palate as the winner from the other round, ended up being the Vario. I believe the final pair was too close to call. Jon can correct me on this if he remembers better how this went.

One round not counted had a defect Vario shot (operator issue). Coincidentally, the Macap shot on that pair was the one that ALL of the judges raved about being the best of the day.

The final pair was the only set I personally tasted and I had no problem picking my favorite (the Macap). I am theorizing in hindsight that maybe you guys were experiencing espresso overload as the final pairs were in fairly rapid succession.

Great test (and whew! I'm not nuts after all)

The David versus Goliath upsets in the TGP usually came at lower doses, which are more fault tolerant than higher dose shots. So the Vario being able to hold its own is perhaps more surprising in this test than in the one I did with shots in the 14 to 16 gram range.

One clear difference is that at 14 to 16 grams, we didn't need to WDT the baskets for any of the grinders, while at 20 grams Jon had to nurse the Vario's along. This is in line with my experience during the TGP shoot outs, where the smaller grinders needed primping and fluffing.

Jon's experience suggests a critique of both my and this test : When it comes to how good the average shot out of this grinder will be, how finicky it is at higher doses compared to the Mini, M4, Rocky and other direct competitors may be the more important than how the best shot from each is. At the lower doses Dan and I tested, the Vario is a well behaved grinder; but a large number of potential buyers will be using it at higher doses. I will check this against the Mini sometime this week, but I don't have access to the other competitive grinders

Nicholas, great that you could bring the Vario.
I'm thinking that another factor in sizing up these grinders is the time fact. That is, with the slower grind of the Vario, one's dosing technique would have to be altered somewhat (the B-Vario has got to be at least twice as slow as all the others, no problem for me)
To me, this point out that the B-Vario was able to "get along" with everyone, so to speak.
On the Orphan Espresso website, Doug's demonstration video shows mounds of fluffiness. I'm not sure that isn't just Idaho thin air! Was it the same in Houston's somewhat heavy air?
Good work, fellows.

IMAWriter wrote:Was it the same in Houston's somewhat heavy air?

I have never been to Idaho, but I can say that the grinds from the Vario were not unusually fluffy compared to the other grinders we tested. It was easy getting the 20g dose into the standard basket with the Vario but with the Macap M7KR it was a challenge to make sure I had enough headspace in the basket with 20g the dose.


And Nicholas - my K30 is an older (2006) model but it is completely rebuilt with new burrs and brains. If we had not pitted that against the Macap right off we could have judged it against the Super Jolly....but I liked the idea of pitting the venerable Super-J against the newcomer Vario.

RapidCoffee wrote:On the CG writeup, JonR* states the M7K "edged out" the K30 in round 1. Nicholas uses terms like "smashed" and "spanked", which mean something quite different to me. Comments?

According to my notes from the judges' comments from the first round:

1 picked the K30 ("slight preference")
2 picked the M7K ("slight preference")
1 picked the M7K ("strong preference")

I suspect I know who had the strong preference......
And now I wonder how it would have gone if round 1 had been M7K vs. Vario

RapidCoffee wrote:* Thanks for the great report, and congrats on your new toy.

Thank you sir. It will be even nicer when I can finish the "Vario" upgrade.
(That's a story all by itself!)

JonR10 wrote:I suspect I know who had the strong preference......

Guilty as charged. IIRC, Bill and Mitchell were slightly in favor of the M7K, and Andrew preferred the K30.

Indeed, my short write-up/highlights were written mainly from my own perspective. Jon was score-keeper (and, as he said, less caffeinated), so I defer to him entirely. We'll have to shoot out the K30 with the M7K for real, sometime. After all that TGP buzz and spending a hefty sum on a Robur, I am still yet to partake of a real blind taste test against a big flat burr and big conical. Let us know the date, Jon.

JonR10 wrote:I have never been to Idaho, but I can say that the grinds from the Vario were not unusually fluffy compared to the other grinders we tested. It was easy getting the 20g dose into the standard basket with the Vario but with the Macap M7KR it was a challenge to make sure I had enough headspace in the basket with 20g the dose.

Geesh. Even when I had my Anita and the wonderful Synesso triple basket you scored for a bunch of CG'ers (had to give you props there )I NEVER had the never, or the inclination to use 20 grams in one shot.
Imagine if that was Dolce?
I'd have been swinging from a chandelier
I will admit, I'm more of an average dose kind of guy, so according to Jim, the B-Vario may be an option for me. (just a nice KyM manual grinder at present)
Slightly OT...
How would you compare the B-Vario with your K30 as far as a nice even drop into the PF/basket?

I've finished testing the Vario provided by Dan ("ddr"). I'm not one of the official HB testers, more the prize in the crackerjack box tester; but for what it's worth, here are my conclusions. Other testers have had quality control issues; so the caveat is that the production must achieve consistent quality.

Bottom Line: Bartaza wanted to put out a grinder that had the form factor and friendly ergonomics of a home grinder, and the quality of a commercial one. I think they have achieved this perfectly.

Grind Quality: My feeling is that the quality is similar to the Trespade conical grinders or the Super Jolly, and slightly better than the Mini or other 50mm to 60mm flat burr grinders. This is surprising, since the Vario burr is in this latter class. Perhaps the ceramic adds some quality. Certainly, the grind adjustment is a lot less finicky and frequent than the Mini, and more comparable to the once a day adjustment I get out of the Trespade grinders or the SJ. The combination of fine and coarse also makes it easier to adjust than the small flats. My feel is that the taste has less of the boom box quality of the Mini, and is clearer and more grown up. But this gets into very subjective territory.

Ergonomics This is a ground up design doserless grinder, like all the Baratzas, and they have been learning with each new model. There is very little grind retention, and no need to sweep, bore, or burp. The PF rest is effective. The grind is not entirely clump free, but better than most doserless grinders I've tried. WDT is not necessary. Static can be an issue, but it is easily controlled by cleaning the burrs. The grinder is amazingly fast and quiet for a domestic.

Maintainability/Flexibility The grinder switches between coarse and fine grinding very quickly, and the espresso setting is fairly stable on return (not a sink shot, but not exactly the same). The burrs can be removed and the grinder cleaned in under one minute. There is no more than 2 grams of coffee remnants in the burrs, burr chamber and outlet - an excellent figure that makes this a standout for cupping or single dose espresso use.

How Long will it Last This is the big question mark. Commercial grinders and some domestic ones like the Rocky or Trespades have threaded rigid burr carriers. Grinders like the Virtuoso and Infinity have three plastic tabs that thread into the plastic case of the grinder. Over time, the grind quality deteriorates as these mounts soften, this is even worse with the old two tab carriers on the Maestro. The Vario has an aluminum carrier that has three metal tabs, and these screw into three plastic tabs that act as threads. The system is as easy to disassemble as the Virtuoso or Infinity, and a lot more rigid. However, whether it will stay completely the same as the metal or bakelite threaded carriers is anyone's guess. In home use, the Capresso Infiniti and Baratza Virtuoso show signs of loosening in about a year to a year and a half. It is obvious from simply looking at this grinder that it will stay tight longer than that. But how much longer is something I can't predict. Any materials engineers care to join the HB test team?

Well, it's been some time since I've given an update on my time with the Vario; I had originally planned a Vario vs. Robur E grinder shootout, but it was executed so poorly that the results seemed even more useless than they might otherwise have been. For what it's worth, however, that test resulted in the Vario beating the Robur by a small margin which, given the number of rounds, indicated statistically a tie (a very close win). However, in the test there was evidence of channeling and other problems which seemed to be the result of multiple shot preparers (1 per grinder) and inadequate shot grooming, and inadequately dialing in the grinders; I didn't think through my errors until it was over, and in the end both grinders lost big time--the shots were pretty poor, much poorer than the day-to-day experience with either grinder.

So, I intended to re-do the test, but after some private discussion and thought, I opted to do the shoot-out with a Mazzer Super Jolly instead: it's likely the more interesting and apt comparison grinder for prospective grinder buyers who are considering the Vario, and after Jim's tests and Jon Rosenthal's vs. the M7K, the SJ is in the "class" of grinders that we really haven't compared the Vario against.

The test was conducted using Coffee Klatch's WBC "World's Best" Espresso 'generously donated' by yours truly (after PT's Coffee donated the coffee for the Robur E test that we screwed up). The machine we used was Paul Jones' Synesso Cyncra, set at 201°F. After messing around with a lower dose, we settled on a 21 gram dose and a shot volume of around 1.5-1.75 oz. Jon Rosenthal joined Paul and me, thankfully, so we were able to easily conduct the test as a double-blind, with me preparing shots in the kitchen and shuffling baskets prior to pulling, and presenting Jon and Paul, the tasters, pairs of split shots in the dining room.

Anyway, the test went swimmingly, with consistency being no problem at all. We did a pair of dry runs while finishing in the dialing in process, and then completed 5 rounds before Jon bowed out due to suspected taste fatigue. The grinders were pretty neck and neck through the test. At first the Super Jolly was producing superior clarity and usually improved sweetness, but the 4th and 5th rounds, the Vario turned the tables on the Super Jolly. Paul (and perhaps Jon) guessed that the Vario shot was actually the Super Jolly shot (in keeping with the pattern). In the end it was a dead heat, even on paper. You can read the raw data we collected here: Google Spreadsheet of Results

You'll note that Jon and I traded places on the 6th and 7th round, but we didn't bother having Jon adjust the machines for his routine, so the results really weren't useful. As the spreadsheet explains, each shot was rated according to a 3-point scale, where 0 is a below average shot, 1 is an average shot, and 2 is an above average shot; the + appended by certain scores indicates which shot the taster preferred in the given round.

The final score (W-T-L) for our Vario vs. the Super Jolly test: 2-1-2.

I want to thank Paul and Jon for their help and their time. We had a lot of fun talking coffee and getting over-caffeinated with superb coffee.