Anyone with a Comandante and Kruve?

Zephyp · 6 Jan

FadedFrontiers To my eye they look fine, but I’ll find some high res photos online to compare with. I have thought about contacting them, but wanted to try figuring out if there’s actually something off with it first, and gather as much info as I can. If I have to send it to Germany and someone look at it, the cost might be too high. I can try e-mailing them with what I got and maybe they can explain it.

For all I know, it’s perfectly fine.

MWJB There’s a tiny bit of play on the axle and with the burr installed it wobbles a little, but very little. I can try getting some photos or a video. From zero (where the handle doesn’t fall down, held by the burrs), the burrs touch a little on settings 1 and 2, but from 3 and up there’s no sound or feel of contact.

I can’t see anything being off with bearings, bearings housing or any other part really. IIRC, it had zero visual wobble years ago, but I don’t know if that can be the reason for the grind distribution conundrum.

MMWJB · 6 Jan

Zephyp What is the largest sieve size that you have? (To see what kind of % you can capture between them

Zephyp · 7 Jan

MWJB The ones I got are 400 and 800. I’ll try them both today.

Zephyp · 7 Jan

What’s the best way to use multiple sieves?

I tried just putting the 800 on top of the 400, using the same two minute method, but got a much lower number below 400 than when I only use 400. I did disassemble and play with the grinder yesterday, so something might have changed, but I see now that it says non-interlocking on your sheet.

MMWJB · 7 Jan

Zephyp Non interlocking on my sheet just means that the >1200 doesn’t have the >1400 subtracted, so it’s the amounts you see if you only used one or the other. The 400 proportion assumes one or the other of the larger sieves is in place.

I like to use the largest sieve available above the 400, so you can capture a meaningful % between the sieves, smallest would be 1100, more typically 1200, or 1400. As large as 1600 for the coarsest grinds. (The amount captured will decrease as you go coarser on grind setting).

You have 28% between 400 & 800 with 10% below 400 - This, without other direct comparisons with C40, seems reasonable compared to readings from my Feldgrind V1 (27%) and an OE Apex (29%).

Zephyp · 7 Jan

Shaking three minutes rather than two with both sieves installed on setting 26 gave me:

59% > 800
27% between 800 and 400
13% < 400

That is more similar to the other data.

Would be interesting to try some brews which fits the 800 > < 400 numbers and remove some of the fines. Do you have those numbers on your current Rombouts setting with the Ode? Or an estimation. I only found < 1200 and 1400 in your sheet.

MMWJB · 7 Jan

Zephyp You can’t remove fines for drip/pour over.

I almost never use the 800 Kruve. However, for the Ode I got 18% at 700 and 28% at 900. From other sifting results, I’d expect the peak from the Comandante to be at a higher Kruve range (e.g. a coarser overall grind), so maybe you’ll see less % at 700-900 at a comparable setting?

Zephyp · 7 Jan

I just remembered about the Germans. I’ve been browsing Kaffee Netz before regarding something about the C40. Of course there are a lot of talk about microns and Kruve results.

https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/comandante-c40-mk3-schon-erfahrungen.95950/

I haven’t gone through all of it, but from a few samples, others got results ranging from sub 10% to over 15% for clicks between 20-25. I can’t verify the techniques used, but at least I found others with similar numbers to mine.

Maybe I should just keep testing and see if I can find a setting that works. If I don’t, I can test with my Lido 3 or Wilfa Uniform to see if I can get something different. I don’t know if comparing grind distribution numbers between grinders works as well as I’d hoped, when even different grinders of the same model get different numbers. It is after all only one or two data points from a grind distribution that spans a larger area.

MMWJB · 7 Jan

Zephyp I don’t know if comparing grind distribution numbers between grinders works as well as I’d hoped, when even different grinders of the same model get different numbers. It is after all only one or two data points from a grind distribution that spans a larger area.

Comparing the 400 or 500Kruve works well for drip/pour over…there will be a little difference for a given recipe, maybe 3-4% span across dissimilar grinders? As far as ‘grind distribution’ goes, it’s really not clear to me what the benefits/adverse effects are (within a typical range). All that I have found so far is that grinders that make fewer boulders (for a similar amount at 400/500) seem to produce better brews, I found my Comandante X25 produced a coarser grind than some of my other grinders.

I wouldn’t get hung up on ‘grind distribution’. Dialling in the 400/500 Kruve % seems the most informative.

What would you say is consistently wrong with the brews at setting 26? (best preference scores so far) Is it generic (similar fault accross different coffees)?

You are making large changes brew to brew (4 clicks between today & yesterday), I found 1 click on the X25 made a noticeable difference, I’d make a small grind change and then make a couple of brews, ideally with a couple of coffees, to see if the trend is consistent.

Zephyp · 7 Jan

MWJB By 3-4% span, does that mean 4-8% <400 with your Ode recipe with 6% as reference, or 2-10%? What do you think is the reason I can’t get good brews closer to those numbers? Lowest I’ve gone is 10.5%, where I rated two brews with El Salvador beans 3 and 4 with 17-17.5% EU, and the Kenyan a 5 with 19.6% EY.

I could try going higher than 30 to see what brews where I got down to 6-8% <400 became, but with an already low EY and taste not improving in that direction, it hasn’t been my instinct to go even coarser.

I don’t have too many brews around 26 yet, and there are two different beans involved, so a bit difficult to say. I’m working on improving my ratings and trying to find descriptors that are helpful. I wrote about this in a topic on palate in here, how I struggle to identify flavors in coffee and wine. It’s gotten better, but I still feel a bit lost at times. Part of the issue is not knowing how good the brew could be, how it would taste if it was brewed as well as you can with my equipment.

Your score descriptors are very helpful as a starting point and makes it easier to give a numerical score. Even if I struggle to describe it, I’m still able to tell if I like it or not.

Dry, sour, too acidic are perhaps something I would use. The Kenyan today wasn’t bad, but my reaction was that it was too acidic, not quite balanced and didn’t feel as good in the mouth. I love sour/acidity in all food and drink, and buy mostly coffee with acidic notes, but it also has to balance with other flavors. Tomatoes without sweetness is no fun.

I know I’ve been moving around a lot. It’s partly to log some Kruve numbers and partly just to see what the brews taste there. When I find something I like at 25, I don’t jump to 30 to fine tune what I found at 25. I would probably not even consider setting 30 if you hadn’t talked about 6% <400. My usual range for years has been 24-26 with the old Hario papers. The plan is to narrow the range and do more brews at the same setting.

I find it useful going to the extremes just to have been there and tried it, if only to get a better sense of what brews taste like when they are over or under extracted. I see from your logs that you like some coffees best closer to 18% EY and others closer to 22%. My thought was that if I only get brews at 20%, maybe I’m missing out om those that are best closer to 22%.

I’ve been meaning to ask something about your sheet. I noticed that you get a lower average EY with the Rombouts than the Hario papers, but still get a similar score. Do those papers produce a lower EY at the best results, than the Harios?

If you used the same bean to brew your best cups, one with Rombouts and one with Hario, where the Hario had a higher EY, would there be a difference in taste between them? Both good, just a bit different?

MMWJB · 7 Jan

Zephyp By 3-4% span, does that mean 4-8% <400 with your Ode recipe with 6% as reference, or 2-10%? What do you think is the reason I can’t get good brews closer to those numbers? Lowest I’ve gone is 10.5%, where I rated two brews with El Salvador beans 3 and 4 with 17-17.5% EU, and the Kenyan a 5 with 19.6% EY.

Concerning my grinders, I’d have the Ode with the lowest at 400 (6%) & Niche/Feldgrind with the highest (9%? But not confirmed the Niche/Feld as yet).

Your 5 score with the Kenyan at setting 30 is not significantly different in EY than the 6 score at 26, a difference of 0.35%EY isn’t enough to be considered ‘different’ and you can easily see that between 2 brews at the same grind setting.

I wouldn’t brew using different grind settings for different beans until I had a fairly consistent sample at a generally preferred setting.

When you say you struggle to identify flavours, are you perhaps trying to be too specific? Do you not taste two different coffees, that taste different, but have a similar malfunction that you have tasted before? I don’t hold much store in the idea that a coffee must taste like something else to be valid/enjoyable. Great if it does, but also great if I like the coffee and I can only be vague about the flavour profile.

Your equipment is able to produce brews as good as I have tasted anywhere.

Zephyp I see from your logs that you like some coffees best closer to 18% EY and others closer to 22%. My thought was that if I only get brews at 20%, maybe I’m missing out om those that are best closer to 22%.

You will also see that the grind setting didn’t change for these brews, it’s just natural fall out from differing solubility of different origins. I don’t try to ‘snipe’ EYs, it appears to be coincidental that when I settle on a method (based on taste), that it averages between 19%& 21%, mostly around 20%.

Zephyp I’ve been meaning to ask something about your sheet. I noticed that you get a lower average EY with the Rombouts than the Hario papers, but still get a similar score. Do those papers produce a lower EY at the best results, than the Harios?

I had to grind coarser than I do with the Hario papers, to reduce silty mouthfeel, this in turn lead to the smaller pulses (30g/30s, vs 40g/40s).

Zephyp Both good, just a bit different?

Yes indeed, this. I don’t know how to make subsequent brews, at the same parameters, taste consistently identical. This is why I plod on at a setting (or small range) for a while before changing it. Otherwise you can’t be sure whether you caused the change you are tasting, or whether it is natural variation in otherwise consistent brews.

Your best score so far is 6/9 (like a little). I have had instant coffee, hotel/conference coffee and Nespresso/compatible pods that I liked a little…they might not have had any interesting acidity, nor tasted like any kind of fruit, but I didn’t dislike them, or have to wonder whether I liked them (e.g. 5/9 Neither like/dislike).

Zephyp · 8 Jan

MWJB Your 5 score with the Kenyan at setting 30 is not significantly different in EY than the 6 score at 26, a difference of 0.35%EY isn’t enough to be considered ‘different’ and you can easily see that between 2 brews at the same grind setting.

I wouldn’t brew using different grind settings for different beans until I had a fairly consistent sample at a generally preferred setting.

I think that 30 was an error. My Kruve sheet said 28 and I don’t think I’ve made the Kenyan on 30. I mainly use my phone and when copying lines and moving numbers from one sheet to another errors can happen. I’ve put them in the same workbook now at least, which makes it easier.

Still, your point is certainly true. Logging helps get perspective. The goal at the moment is finding a somewhat preferred setting to keep using.

MWJB When you say you struggle to identify flavours, are you perhaps trying to be too specific? Do you not taste two different coffees, that taste different, but have a similar malfunction that you have tasted before? I don’t hold much store in the idea that a coffee must taste like something else to be valid/enjoyable. Great if it does, but also great if I like the coffee and I can only be vague about the flavour profile.

I don’t think being too specific is the issue. My experience is that unless I get nice, balanced cups, I have no chance at identifying any notes anyhow. At this point I’m primarily looking for an enjoyable cup. I agree that there’s no need for it to taste like apples and oranges, but fun when it does. My most memorable experience in that regard was a Yirgacheffe that tasted like blueberry coffee. It was wonderful, but has never happened again.

Identifying what I don’t like about it, what’s missing or what there’s too much of is something I’ve struggled with. Is it sour, too acidic, bitter? Particularly when getting close to a good brew. That’s partly due to not logging or making a conscious effort to identify the taste. I can tell if one cup is better than the other and give it a score, but not necessarily put into words what was different or what I didn’t like about one of them.

MWJB You will also see that the grind setting didn’t change for these brews, it’s just natural fall out from differing solubility of different origins. I don’t try to ‘snipe’ EYs, it appears to be coincidental that when I settle on a method (based on taste), that it averages between 19%& 21%, mostly around 20%.

I did notice that. What is your approach to dose (or ratio)? I’ve used several of your recipes now and notice that it sometimes changes when the recipe changes. When changing from Hario to Rombouts, the dose remained the same, but water increased to 210 g. Is that just based on taste and strength preference?

MWJB Your best score so far is 6/9 (like a little). I have had instant coffee, hotel/conference coffee and Nespresso/compatible pods that I liked a little…they might not have had any interesting acidity, nor tasted like any kind of fruit, but I didn’t dislike them, or have to wonder whether I liked them (e.g. 5/9 Neither like/dislike).

Scores are of course very subjective, and as I keep logging I suppose I’ll get more accurate with both score and comments when I got more experience. There’s been things I like about most of the cups, but when choosing a score I first of all try to assess if the good or bad parts were most dominant. There can be things I like about a 4-5/9 cup, but the negative aspects outweigh them. At 5, it’s a tie.

MWJB Your equipment is able to produce brews as good as I have tasted anywhere.

Oh yeah, I can’t blame the equipment. It’s all about the operator.

MMWJB · 8 Jan

Zephyp I did notice that. What is your approach to dose (or ratio)? I’ve used several of your recipes now and notice that it sometimes changes when the recipe changes. When changing from Hario to Rombouts, the dose remained the same, but water increased to 210 g. Is that just based on taste and strength preference?

Nowadays I weigh 14g into a grinder (might change subtly depending on the grinder retention/bag size), I get 13.8g out to brew and stick to that weight. So that is setting my dose.

13.8/200 = 69g/L

13.8/210 = 66g/L…I tend to stick to one ratio, or the other, for a given recipe, rather than flit between the two, but the difference between these two ratios is pretty inconsequential regarding strength in the cup, there’ll be a lot of overlap. However, if I’m brewing at 200g total and I feel that the resulting cup could benefit from a little more extraction, I might add another 10g to the final pulse, to lift extraction a tad.

For the bloom plus 6 pours with the Rombouts paper, 200/7= 29g, it’s just more intuitive to work to 30g pulses and 210g brew water total.