I've been kicking around the idea of buying a Monolith Flat Max to go with my Conical. To read these forums, the grass is so much greener on the flat side of the fence, I assumed I was seriously missing out. But I had never been able to try the conical and flat side by side to see for myself how the other half has been living.

So earlier this week, Michael (CarefreeBuzzBuzz) and his wife came over to do a comparison. He brought over his Monolith Flat (non-SSP), and I had my Conical (regular burrs, not red speed). We had in total 5 (I think - maybe it was 6?) different coffees - two from Temple (one light, one medium), and three that Michael had roasted, including one decaf.

For any given coffee, we kept the dose the same between grinders, and the yield and pour time as close as possible. Identical LM precision baskets were used for both.

It's much harder than you'd think to do these comparisons in a way that feels valid. Matching a shot time between two grinders for multiple shots in a row really requires meticulous prep every single time. And if you want back-to-back shots from multiple grinders within 30 seconds of each other, your odds go down even further (if each shot has a 80% chance of being perfect, two in a row has a 64% chance) After a half hour or so, we loosened up on what we thought was "valid" - ha. That said, our observations were generally consistent over multiple coffees, so I feel good about our general conclusions.

Here are my own observations - I'm sure Michael will chime in here if he disagrees:

1. For most of our coffees, the flat provided a much "fluffier" grind consistency. The conical wasn't clumpy or anything like that - it just wasn't what I'd call "fluffy".

2. The Flat does seem to provide more "clarity". When I use that word here, I mean it's somewhat easier to pick out the individual flavors from a multi-flavored coffee. But...

3. The Conical was consistently more "punchy". If there is a flavor you like, the conical seemed to give you more of it. So while the flat was more mellow, lining up all the flavors next to each other on the table for you to enjoy, the conical would throw them in your face. Ok, maybe the difference isn't that dramatic , but I felt it was definitely punchier, and consistently so across coffees.

4. I found I preferred different coffees with different grinders. It didn't come down to light vs dark, though, as is commonly discussed. It more came down to whether I liked the punchy flavors from a particular coffee, or whether I liked it toned down and mellower. For example, a medium roast African decaf of Michael's I liked better with the flat. The Temple Dharma I preferred with the conical, as it seemed to push the cherry flavors through with more emphasis.

5. In every case where we had a noticeable difference between grinders, it felt like it was so close between them, we thought there was a good chance we could have dialed in the shot on the other grinder slightly differently to get a similar flavor. We didn't try to do this, but it was an impression we were left with.

But finally - everything I said above is tempered with this: the differences between grinders was SUBTLE. Shots from both grinders were enjoyable, on every coffee we tried. When I had a preference for one, it wasn't bad vs good - it was good vs slightly different/better.

The conclusion, at least for me, is unexpected. I thought I'd leave this exercise excited about getting a Flat, as I love new toys and geeking out over small differences. But in the end, I don't think the difference is enough FOR ME to make me want to add a second grinder to my counter. At least not at the moment.

I don't see myself buying a new coffee, dialing it in on two grinders, and spending endless hours and countless shots deciding which one I like better. Or worse, stressing out in the morning trying to decide which one to use. I would rather spend my time dialing in that coffee on one grinder, and perhaps experimenting with what different flavors I can get out of it. YMMV of course!

Your impressions are similar to mine when I compared my Monolith Flat with Mythos burrs with my Compak K10, which has the same size burrs as the Monolith Conical (my K10 is rigged for single-dosing, so retention isn't an issue.)

But I have two comments on your observations:

1. From what I've read about the Monolith Flat Max, it's different enough from the original Monolith Flat that you may not be comparing apples to apples.

2. There was a distinct improvement in flavor when I upgraded the Mythos burrs in my Flat to SSP burrs. If you compared a Flat with Mythos burrs with the Conical, then I would say your observations might be rather different than had you compared a Flat with SSP burrs with the Conical. That said, some people (which I think includes Denis) feel that the non-SSP burrs that eventually replaced the original Mythos burrs in the Flat are closer in quality to the SSP burrs and the difference is harder to detect. AFAIK, no one has done a rigorous comparison of those burrs with the SSP burrs.

While I do believe that the flavor differences among all these variations are likely to be somewhat subtle, perhaps only detectable by trained tasters, and perhaps on the order of whether one would prefer a Maserati or a Ferrari, I'm not convinced that your experiments reveal what you might experience with a Monolith Flat Max versus the Conical.

I also heartily endorse your observation that the results of comparisons like this are highly dependent on the coffee.

...otherwise known as a reasonable approach
I don't have either of these wonderful machines, but I did the same experiment and purchased 2 machines more in my price bracket and modified them until they were more or less close to what I wanted... and found nearly the same subtle differences. I prefer the grind from the conical most times.
Great commentary, Greg.

aloha,
walt

gr2020 wrote:It's much harder than you'd think to do these comparisons in a way that feels valid. Matching a shot time between two grinders for multiple shots in a row really requires meticulous prep every single time. And if you want back-to-back shots from multiple grinders within 30 seconds of each other, your odds go down even further (if each shot has a 80% chance of being perfect, two in a row has a 64% chance) After a half hour or so, we loosened up on what we thought was "valid" - ha. That said, our observations were generally consistent over multiple coffees, so I feel good about our general conclusions.

Good work! This is the method we settled on during the titan grinder project. It would be nice to use different settings and doses for each grinder to see if one can get identical shots, or to get the best tasting shots from each. But it would never end.

gr2020 wrote: 5. In every case where we had a noticeable difference between grinders, it felt like it was so close between them, we thought there was a good chance we could have dialed in the shot on the other grinder slightly differently to get a similar flavor. We didn't try to do this, but it was an impression we were left with.

But finally - everything I said above is tempered with this: the differences between grinders was SUBTLE. Shots from both grinders were enjoyable, on every coffee we tried. When I had a preference for one, it wasn't bad vs good - it was good vs slightly different/better.

I think once you get into the commercial grinder range, especially at the top, differences are subtle. For me, because the differences are subtle, a lot comes down to trust, and working well with your particular style. I switch between coffees a lot, so I want a grinder where changing coffees doesn't require changing the relation of dose and grind. I think conicals often have an edge for that. The people I know whose thing is to use one coffee at a time and get it just right, tend to gravitate towards the big flats.

The conical being punchier is new to me. Conicals tended to be mellower than 64mm flats in my experience; are the big flats mellower than the medium ones?

Great job, guys. I found myself going through questions like you answered when I was awaiting the delivery of my MonFlatSSP. I don't have a MonCon to compare to so your comparison will do the job nicely.

I'm still trying to grapple in my own mind exactly WHAT makes the difference IN THE CUP. I mean, at the end of the day what we have are small fragments of coffee beans that were chewed up by some mastication process, and APPARENTLY that mastication process leaves behind enough forensic evidence that bears out in the taste and feel of the water run through it. Think about it - this is a fascinating process - that we are able to discern, or track back in time how various microscopic particles were torn apart just by the taste and mouthfeel we observe after running hot water over them. This is actually forensically incredible to me. It reminds me of that discovery that was made years back when some ceramic vases were unearthed from Ancient Greece (?) in which we were able to pull an audio track off the outside of the vase that was left when the person that made the vase was turning it and "recorded" an audio track into the clay via the small microridges in his or her sponge or tools.

Anyhow, I applaud you guys for doing this. I'm quite sure my palate wouldn't have helped in your testing! But I will read and re-read your results a few more times to make sure I can make sense of it and put it into practice. I know I have good tools to use, I have good coffee, and I have a desire to discern the difference - so all that I need is more practice.

I'd love to hear other people's input as well that would help me learn whats going on here and how I an understand it better. Its hugely fascinating to me - I strive to grow this thing between my ears

N6GQ wrote:It reminds me of that discovery that was made years back when some ceramic vases were unearthed from Ancient Greece (?) in which we were able to pull an audio track off the outside of the vase that was left when the person that made the vase was turning it and "recorded" an audio track into the clay via the small microridges in his or her sponge or tools.

So THAT's how rap music started. I shoulda known.

I don't notice 'punchier' with my k10 conical, but it does have more presence. I call it 'maturity' as the flavors seem deeper and more well rounded, I liken it to more 'bass' and full spectrum. I liken the flats to concentrating more attention on the high end, but it does seem easier to distinguish flavors using my SJ. And, as Jim pointed out, the conical is much more forgiving in the adjustment department and in things like bean aging and tamping pressure, so I tend to use it more as its easier for me. The k10 is also noticeably fluffier than my SJ flat. The only thing I could not address to my satisfaction was that I could never drop the SJ rpms down, its at 1400ish rpm

I concur in Greg's analysis of this all. And I have the last MF flat before the SSP's so they are second gen.

Other observations -

Was fascinating to do this experiment.
We live in low humidity, especially now, so all shots had RDT and WDT. We used the Leva Tamp a bit different but once we were in the ball park all the shots were excellent.
Was hard to compare some of coffees where we used the bottomless portafilter as there were temp differences as we pulled one shot after another at times.
Sometimes we tried Greg's dual portafilter and it didn't seem like it split the espresso evenly. I blame myself for leaning on the counter.
Even for the coffees which I had roasted, I made a mistake in not bringing the one I was most familiar with. I had brought some that I was testing out to consider for purchase. I wish I had brought my mainstay.
My routine at home is different than Greg's, as I use pre-brew on my Slayer. Greg had been using full pressure immediately on his GS3. Also my standard is 19.5 grms and his 18.5. So it took a number of shots to change the MF to pull appropriately.

Overall though it was a great adventure. Most importantly, I agree with Greg that you could dial in one or the other to get great results. Thank you Denis.

Michael

Just a thought / question. If keeping the dose and yield the same would it not leave it to happen stance which grinder landed on a more ideal extraction.

Meaning if, for example, 18in 27out was picked would that favor typically a conical vs maybe 18in 36 our favoring a flat? Or vice versa for that matter.

I had a conical before a flat and "feel" that flat does better at higher extractions and ratio like 2:1. I say feel because I couldn't do any side by sides, I applaud your efforts there tho!!!

another_jim wrote:Good work! This is the method we settled on during the titan grinder project. It would be nice to use different settings and doses for each grinder to see if one can get identical shots, or to get the best tasting shots from each. But it would never end.



I think once you get into the commercial grinder range, especially at the top, differences are subtle. For me, because the differences are subtle, a lot comes down to trust, and working well with your particular style. I switch between coffees a lot, so I want a grinder where changing coffees doesn't require changing the relation of dose and grind. I think conicals often have an edge for that. The people I know whose thing is to use one coffee at a time and get it just right, tend to gravitate towards the big flats.

The conical being punchier is new to me. Conicals tended to be mellower than 64mm flats in my experience; are the big flats mellower than the medium ones?

If we can convince someone to bring their Monolith Conical on the 10th maybe we can do an abridged experiment of our own.

Peppersass wrote:...whether one would prefer a Maserati or a Ferrari...

If there was a show named "Top Coffee Gear", I'd watch it.