Melodrip - increase or decrease extraction - Page 2

Coffee preparation techniques besides espresso like pourover.
zefkir
Posts: 271
Joined: 4 years ago

#11: Post by zefkir »

Any time I measured my brews with the melodrip, the brews were both a lot faster and at a lot lower extraction than my brews without the melodrip where I use the kettle stream to agitate the bed.

With traditional pourovers, I haven't found the melodrip particularly useful, brews are almost universally less intense and less aromatic.

There are some uses to the melodrip, no bypass brews, brews with very fine grounds, brews where you mix in a melodrip phase and a regular agitation phase, brews where you introduce a lot of manual agitation to replace the agitation from the stream from a kettle...

It's a tool that does what you intuitively think it does, no agitation, faster brews, lower extraction. If you can work around those things, you can open up new tasty ways* to brew, but in normal pourover use, I've almost always found a regular kettle with nothing else better.

*An aeropress with a melodrip and fast flowing paper filters does make a better tricolate with small doses for example.

Eiern
Posts: 628
Joined: 9 years ago

#12: Post by Eiern »

I use my Melodrip only for the final pour with my V60/Kalita/Kono brews starting when the water of the first pour is just above the bed. The bloom and first pour is normal kettle agitation. Works well, has been doing this daily for the last two years.

Doesn't answer the question but I believe like others that it drops extraction unless you grind finer to compensate for the lower agitation.

I've also used it as mentioned above, for no-bypass brewing with an Aeropress. It's handy to have but I could get by without one.

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#13: Post by culturesub »

zefkir wrote:Any time I measured my brews with the melodrip, the brews were both a lot faster and at a lot lower extraction than my brews without the melodrip where I use the kettle stream to agitate the bed.

With traditional pourovers, I haven't found the melodrip particularly useful, brews are almost universally less intense and less aromatic.

There are some uses to the melodrip, no bypass brews, brews with very fine grounds, brews where you mix in a melodrip phase and a regular agitation phase, brews where you introduce a lot of manual agitation to replace the agitation from the stream from a kettle...

It's a tool that does what you intuitively think it does, no agitation, faster brews, lower extraction. If you can work around those things, you can open up new tasty ways* to brew, but in normal pourover use, I've almost always found a regular kettle with nothing else better.

*An aeropress with a melodrip and fast flowing paper filters does make a better tricolate with small doses for example.
As I mentioned, if you don't adjust for grind size, the MD will absolutely lower extraction. If you use it as intended, you will get brighter, cleaner brews with dramatically higher extraction. If you use any tool not as designed, then you aren't going to get the results it was designed to give.

Milligan
Supporter ❤
Posts: 1522
Joined: 2 years ago

#14: Post by Milligan »

I did an apples to apples comparison this morning. Same exact technique for Melodrop vs regular gooseneck pour. Melodrip was faster. Allowed for a much finer grind on the 804 LS which creates more fines than my SSP MPs. It came down to technique. Appreciate the thread. Sometimes I get stuck in a rut and need a little nudge to explore again.

Now to see how fine I can go...

zefkir
Posts: 271
Joined: 4 years ago

#15: Post by zefkir »

culturesub wrote:As I mentioned, if you don't adjust for grind size, the MD will absolutely lower extraction. If you use it as intended, you will get brighter, cleaner brews with dramatically higher extraction. If you use any tool not as designed, then you aren't going to get the results it was designed to give.
This is what I said
There are some uses to the melodrip, no bypass brews, brews with very fine grounds, brews where you mix in a melodrip phase and a regular agitation phase, brews where you introduce a lot of manual agitation to replace the agitation from the stream from a kettle...
... If you can work around those things, you can open up new tasty ways* to brew

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#16: Post by culturesub »

zefkir wrote:This is what I said

I understand- but my point is that you would adjust for MD like you would adjust for an origin, so comparing it to the exact same thing without adjusting for its use will give you inferior results to adjusting for the proper use of the tool.

Jonk
Posts: 2207
Joined: 4 years ago

#17: Post by Jonk »

culturesub wrote:It's absolutely true for v60, it's been around much longer then no bypass brewers and that's what it was designed to do.
Please, show us what the OP asked for.

My experience mirrors zefkir's to the dot. Like Eiern, I don't regret owning one.. but the use case is pretty limited and I wouldn't really miss it either

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#18: Post by culturesub »

I need to provide a test to show that grinding finer increases extraction?

Jonk
Posts: 2207
Joined: 4 years ago

#19: Post by Jonk »

Try this: grind espresso fine and use a Kalita Wave filter in a V60, with bare kettles pours and maximum agitation. I can pretty much guarantee it won't extract high.. but it can be tasty enough.

Or don't. You don't need to do anything.

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#20: Post by culturesub replying to Jonk »

Agreed 100%. Now do the same with a MD, I guarantee it will extract higher, especially if you follow the MD recommended recipe.