Results 1 to 50 of 50
Like Tree47Likes
  • 1 Post By Yelta
  • 1 Post By JojoS
  • 1 Post By JojoS
  • 12 Post By ccgnome
  • 4 Post By kwantfm
  • 1 Post By LFM60
  • 1 Post By timdimdom
  • 1 Post By Magic_Matt
  • 1 Post By rawill
  • 1 Post By ccgnome
  • 1 Post By Magic_Matt
  • 2 Post By Otago
  • 3 Post By artman
  • 1 Post By timdimdom
  • 2 Post By 2muchcoffeeman
  • 6 Post By ccgnome
  • 1 Post By trentski
  • 1 Post By Otago
  • 1 Post By Magic_Matt
  • 1 Post By Magic_Matt
  • 1 Post By Kruve
  • 2 Post By Melbroaster
  • 1 Post By Otago

Thread: Kruve sifter

  1. #1
    Rbn
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Southland NZ
    Posts
    434

    Kruve sifter

    I have just seen an advert for these on Facebook.
    I wondered, have we got any users here, and if so, what was the experience like.

    I can see a use for them, especially with my lower end Breville grinder.
    But also with the EM480.

    I also wondered how I would decide which sieves to use.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    326
    Ask in a week or two and you might get some answers. I have one on the way(Kickstarter order) but not sure when it is arriving. In the mean whike their website has some recipes up. Seems promising if not a bit geeky for many here.

  3. #3
    Senior Member 2muchcoffeeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by samuellaw178 View Post
    I have one on the way (Kickstarter order) but not sure when it is arriving.
    Me too.... They are supposedly shipping now...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    5,790
    Hmmmmm, Kruve? https://www.kruveinc.com/ Rafino?https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...efining-system dunno???? both have web sites both look the same, Rafino had raised US$158,000 for a kick starter program backing back in early 2016, delivery promised May 2016, have yet to hear of anyone taking delivery of sieves, discussed in this thread back in April 2016 http://coffeesnobs.com.au/brewing-eq...tml#post599431

    I'm still very much of the opinion that the sieves are a solution to a non existent problem.
    trentski likes this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
    Posts
    251
    I have mine. A bit troublesome for me to use for espresso using the recommended sieves.

  6. #6
    Senior Member shapeshifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    726
    I've got one coming too. I've been looking for something like this for years, as soon as I saw it, it was a definite buy item.

  7. #7
    Senior Member shapeshifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    726
    Yelta, same thing same company, they had a trademark challenge in one of the European countries so instead of just changing the name for that country they changed it completely, hence Rafino became Kruve.

  8. #8
    Senior Member shapeshifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    726
    JojoS can you explain what you are doing, what is going wrong?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
    Posts
    251
    Just doing what is recommended in the Kruve videos. Using the sieves recommended for espresso and sifting for 1 minute also as recommended. I have issues with static leading to fines clinging to the back side of both sieves and less than half of the original weight in the middle with almost half on top. Maybe the system will be easier to use for pour over and french press grind setting.
    Last edited by JojoS; 31st January 2017 at 05:25 PM.
    DonnerJack likes this.

  10. #10
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    15,796
    What type of grinder are you using mate?

    Mal.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
    Posts
    251
    Eureka Mignon Manual. A guy named Ira who is using a Kafatek Monolith experienced something similar as posted in HB.
    DonnerJack likes this.

  12. #12
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    15,796
    Shouldn't be any issue with too high a proportion of fines then...

    As a matter of interest, what is the 'working diameter' of the screens themselves?
    If it is too small, this can create a situation where the grinds are distributed across the screens in too erratic a depth profile, which then prevents the efficient passage of sized particles.

    With regard to the apparent static issue, perhaps one of the commercially available antistatic compounds could be applied to the screens...

    Mal.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
    Posts
    251
    For espresso the recommended sieves are 250 and 500 microns. I think you pretty much nailed the cause of inefficiency of the sifting process complicated by clogging due to fines clinging on the backside of the sieves. The usual load of 22 grams of coffee grinds maybe too much. I did try a coarser sieve on top (600 microns) but the results were pretty much the same.

  14. #14
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    15,796
    Yep, to be expected unfortunately...

    Screens/Sieves work well for free flowing materials but with something like fresh coffee, I think it's asking too much...

    Mal.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Dimal View Post
    Shouldn't be any issue with too high a proportion of fines then...

    As a matter of interest, what is the 'working diameter' of the screens themselves?
    If it is too small, this can create a situation where the grinds are distributed across the screens in too erratic a depth profile, which then prevents the efficient passage of sized particles.

    With regard to the apparent static issue, perhaps one of the commercially available antistatic compounds could be applied to the screens...

    Mal.
    Morning Mal, in my past life we used this type of sieve for mineral sample preparation, have posted a link to an article which may enlighten.


    One of the first requirements for grading of samples using this method is that the sample be ground to the approx grade required then heated/dried until completely dry, samples containing the smallest amount of moisture will clog the sieves.

    Roasted Arabica beans contain 15% to 17% lipids, so while static may well contribute to the problem, not surprisingly I suspect the relatively high percentage of lipids/oil remaining in ground roasted Arabica beans would be the main reason the sieves clog, of coarse drying to the point that the samples will pass through the mesh will destroy the nature of the coffee. https://www.coffeechemistry.com/chem...pids-in-coffee

    Sieving this way is a slow process, note in this link almost at the bottom there is a video of a person assembling a stack of sieves and loading them into a mechanical shaker https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog...ysis-explained

    "recommended sieves are 250 and 500 microns" Interesting that even water will not pass through a 400 micron screen, what hope oily coffee fines.

    Both links I have inserted are well worth a read and may well provide a better understanding of the grinding grading process.

  16. #16
    Mal Dimal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Warwick, QLD
    Posts
    15,796
    My thoughts precisely Yelta...
    Hope the OP reads your very informative links...

    Mal.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Rockingham W.A.
    Posts
    1,042
    The one time I tested grinders I had access to a range of medical grade stainless sieves in a mechanical shaker. they were really quick - probably under 15 seconds per double (15 to 18g) shot. Due to the speed, oxidation was minimised. They didn't clog up at all (probably due high grade stainless lack of static plus the mechanical action itself).

    There were three main takeaways -
    The best grinders (IMHO, based on flavour in the cup) had an even particle spread to the point that sieving did not leave much "unwanted excess".
    Sieving conical grinders output effectively removed the "twin peak effect" of particle spread shared by all conicals. That second peak was blindingly obvious.
    The sieving process brought all grinders up to a similar level both in terms of taste and extraction ratio.

    My conclusion - sieving is a waste of time if you have a grinder with an even particle spread (think Ditting, Mahlkonig et. al.). The worse your grinder, the more sieving works in your favour.

    TampIt

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA, perth
    Posts
    247
    interested to know how well it works for filter though. the promo videos seem to be quite exclusively demonstrating filter brews (probably because of what you're mentioning here).
    which was the largest hole size you started seeing these problems? or are they across the board on most of the sieves?

  19. #19
    Senior Member trentski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Altona, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,579
    Grinding a couple of days in advance would fix the moisture problem. Then you could seive and get a consistent particle size.

    Coffee would taste like crap but at least the sieve works.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    5,790
    May well fix the moisture problem (if there is one) certainly won't do anything to remove the oils, which I see as the main culprit for clogging.

    If cold water wont pass through a 400 micron screen what hope has freshly ground coffee of passing through a 500 mesh screen, very little I suspect.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    641
    Just received my Kruve. Packaging and overall look of the product is extremely impressive. Will probably try espresso once, but after that will be mainly for pour over and immersion type brews.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA, perth
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    May well fix the moisture problem (if there is one) certainly won't do anything to remove the oils, which I see as the main culprit for clogging.

    If cold water wont pass through a 400 micron screen what hope has freshly ground coffee of passing through a 500 mesh screen, very little I suspect.
    still, i want to give into wishful thinking and see if it actually does work. otherwise im sure the guys wouldve realized they simply dont have a product on their hands if their largest sized fine mesh (bottom mesh) isnt up to it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melbroaster View Post
    Just received my Kruve. Packaging and overall look of the product is extremely impressive. Will probably try espresso once, but after that will be mainly for pour over and immersion type brews.
    would love to hear how you go on filter! =)

  23. #23
    Senior Member trentski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Altona, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Yelta View Post
    May well fix the moisture problem (if there is one) certainly won't do anything to remove the oils, which I see as the main culprit for clogging.

    If cold water wont pass through a 400 micron screen what hope has freshly ground coffee of passing through a 500 mesh screen, very little I suspect.
    Do the seiving after you've made the coffee?

  24. #24
    Senior Member Yelta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Moonta SA.
    Posts
    5,790
    Quote Originally Posted by trentski View Post
    Do the seiving after you've made the coffee?
    As Pumpkin said to Yolanda in Pulp Fiction.

    "Now that was a good idea."

  25. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    18

    Using Kruve Coffee Filters to Make Espresso Coffee. Do They Work?

    I ordered a set of six Kruve Coffee sieves some months ago and last Thursday they finally arrived. For those unfamiliar with the Kruve it is a new product consisting of a removable set of sieves of different fineness that fit into a container. Generally two filters will be fitted to the housing at one time, a coarse filter to sift out the large particles (“boulders”) that naturally occur in ground coffee and a much finer filter designed to filter out the small particles (“fines”). Ground coffee is placed on top of the coarse filter and the container is shaken by hand. The boulders are then captured by the top filter while the fines pass through both filters to the container at the bottom. The middle layer sitting on top of the fine filter now contains coffee that has fewer boulders and fines and this is what you use to make your espresso.

    The theory is that the boulders extract more slowly when making coffee as they have a larger surface area in relation to volume. The boulders will thus contribute an unwanted underextracted sour taste to the resultant coffee. The fines on the other hand will extract more quickly as they have a large surface area in relation to volume. They will thus contribute a bitter overextracted taste to the coffee. By removing the boulders and fines from the ground coffee the promise is a coffee that is both less sour and less bitter.

    Rather than filtering out the boulders and fines the alternative is to use a grinder that producers fewer of them to start with, by producing a much narrower, tighter particle size distribution in the ground coffee. Alas, no grinder can do this perfectly though some expensive grinders such as the Mahlkonig EK43 have much tighter grind particle size distributions than most grinders.

    Not everyone can afford an EK43 or has space to accommodate its huge bulk, so filtering out the boulders and fines produced from an ordinary grinder with something like the Kruve seems like a good cheap alternative. We are talking around $100 here rather than $4000.

    Well that’s the promise but what is the reality?

    After many hours of experimentation, I’ve come up with some tentative answers to this question as well making some observations that may prove useful to other espresso coffee lovers who are also experimenting with the Kruve filters. This is the purpose of this post.

    I should say right from the start that I have no affiliation with Kruve at all and I bought the product unsolicited with my own money. In fact, I have no affiliation with the coffee industry at all and am simply a home enthusiast.

    Initial impressions of the product

    Many crowd funded projects have failed so I was both surprised and delighted when the product actually arrived at my doorstep.

    Opening the parcel provided another surprise; the packaging was of the highest order, in fact approaching Apple standards.

    Not only was the packaging of high standard so was the product itself. The filter body holder is in beautifully finished anodised aluminium, the lid is solid wood and the individual sieves are constructed of stainless steel. The fit of all components, including the six sieves of different fineness, was excellent and the overall design and aesthetics both clever and pleasing. They even provide an attractive wooden holder for holding unused filters. It is years since I’ve bought a product that greatly exceeded my expectations but that is just what the Kruve sieve set did.

    Using the Kruve for Espresso

    The Kruve has only been in the hands of users for a very short time so I was not surprised that a web search yielded little guidance from forums about using Kruve. This is particularly true in relation to using the Kruve to make espresso coffee so I quickly realised I was going to have to do a lot of experimentation myself. Right from the start I knew I was heading into the unknown.

    The Kruve instruction book gives some rough guidelines. For espresso, they suggest using a 250 um sieve for fines and a 500 um sieve for boulders. Unfortunately, these sieves are only available in the 12 sieve model, the six sieve model I bought being limited to 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, 1000. So that was the first problem; what mesh filters should I use?

    As a guide the Kruve website suggest that you should aim for roughly equal quanities of boulders and fines based on weight. While noting the suggestion, the idea of “balance” struck me as somewhat arbitrary as 5 grams of fines may be far more potent in affecting taste than 5g of boulders when you take into account the much larger surface area presented by the fines. Besides grinder particle size distributions are not symmetric so once again the idea of balancing the boulders and fines seemed unlikely. Experimentation was clearly needed.

    There were too many variables here for an amateur like me so I decided to hold a few of the then constant. The variables I decided to hold were the coffee blend and the espresso recipe.

    The coffee I chose to use was a Kenyan from MyCuppa Roasters. It is a medium roast bean with classic Kenyan lime and cocoa. It’s a good quality commercial coffee from a specialist roaster that has deservedly picked up a few prizes at shows. Overall though it falls well short of the exotic and highly expensive Colombian and Central American Geishas I’ve been drinking lately but there was no way I’d be using these prized coffees for experimentation.

    The espresso recipe was 20g in for 40 g out at 94 degrees. The grind was tuned to maximize sweetness and fruity acidity resulting in a 37 second extraction time including 6 seconds pre-infusion at 3 bar. The grinder was a Compak K10 PB, which is a large, good quality commercial conical grinder. It’s no EK43 but it is no slouch either with excellent grind-to grind consistency.

    The fact that I was holding the recipe constant is an important caveat as ideally you would like to retune the grind to maximise sweetness and fruity acidity for every sieve combination tested. But life is too short for achieving perfection folks so given the overwhelming percentage of the total grind is in the middle, i.e. is neither boulders nor fines, then I figured the original grind optimisation would still apply to the bulk of the coffee.

    The Experiments Start

    In the absence of having the recommended 250 and 500 um sieves I used the closest I had, the 200 and 600 um sieves.

    I started out with the same grind settings used for the standard unsieved coffee. This sieved grinds looked very fine and when I tried to pull an espresso it unsurprisingly choked.

    The choking was so convincing that I figured I should immediately move to coarser sieves rather than just coarsen the grind. So for the second shot I used the 300 and 800um sieves.

    The result was better though the 49 second pour was still way too long. For the next shot I coarsened the grind by one division on the Compak K10 and left the sieves unchanged. This time I got a 41 second pour. So I adjusted the Compak one division coarser. Bingo! A 38 second pour with the original recipe of 20 in 40 out.

    At these settings the split in the sieves was 4.0g in the top coarse sieve, 21.8 in the middle and 2.0 in the fine for an initial quantity of beans of 28 g. That’s a Iot of waste so wondered whether shaking the Kruve longer would improve the usable grind yield. Here are the results showing how the amount of waste (boulders and fines) varied with the length of time the Kruve was shaken:

    30” 10.6g
    60” 7.4g
    90” 5.8g
    120” 5.3g
    150” 5.1 g.

    Kruve recommend shaking for 20 to 60 seconds. My results for a Compak K10 suggest this is too short. I’d suggest 90 to 120 seconds if you want to minimize waste.

    Incidentally I tried regrinding the boulders and resieved the result. This halved the amount of boulders which is a useful further reduction in total waste to around 4g for a 28g dose of beans in the grinder. That a loss of around 14% which is good but that’s only achievable if you shake for 120 seconds and regrind the boulders.

    But how does sieving out fines and boulders change the taste of the espresso?

    As they say “it’s all in the cup.” Regardless of theory, regardless of claims, if the flavour of the coffee is not improved then it’s a waste of time.

    I know you are hanging in for the answer but I simply have to make some caveats to the conclusions I have arrived at:

    First my results are based on a Compak K10 grinder. Other grinders may yield different results.

    Second I used the same espresso recipe for the sieved and unsieved coffee. It is possible the optimum recipe for the sieved differs from the unsieved. This I am yet to test.

    Third I used a medium roast coffee. Light or dark roasts may produce different results.

    Finally, the sieves I used resulted in twice the weight of boulders compared to fines. Different rations may produce different results

    Enough qualifications; let’s cut to the chase.

    In a straight espresso (i.e. short black) there was a noticeable difference in taste between the sieved and unsieved coffee. Compared to the unsieved, the sieved had a markedly less aggressive acidity as well as reduced bitterness resulting in a softer tasting, less strident coffee that was a pleasure to drink. Clarity was noticeably improved with a layered, highly characterised fruity acidity. Indeed I could taste floral characters I had never before tasted in this particular Kenyan coffee which made it taste like a more expensive coffee.

    Sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Alas there is a downside and that is the sieved coffee was also a tad blander, for want of a different word. Maybe not bland in the sense of colourless or boring but bland in the sense of lacking as much immediate impact. The best way I could describe this would be comparing a merlot wine to say a cabernet sauvignon. I’ve had wonderful easy to drink merlots and some gnarly old cab savs and found great value in each. The wine that works well while sipping on a veranda after lunch with your partner may not be the wine you like with a steak you are having for dinner. In other words, we need to move away from characterising the difference between the sieved and unsieved coffees as “better and worse” to one of noting and appreciating differences.

    But what about milk coffee. What differences did I taste here? Well to be honest, far fewer. While I could pick the sieved short black blindfolded it was much harder with a flat white. Not only were the differences less noticeable, there was also a lesser sense of preference. I clearly preferred the sieved short black but with the flat white I was far less sure. In fact, if anything I may have preferred the unsieved. Maybe it was because the harsher acidity of the unsieved cut through the milk better; I really can’t say. What I can say is that with milk coffee, the difference between the sieved and unsieved coffee was seriously reduced compared to black coffee. Reduced perhaps, to the level of inconsequentiality.

    So in the end it comes down to individual preferences. If you a third wave coffee drinker and pour-over enthusiast, who values clarity in the cup in their black coffee then it is likely sieving is going to deliver for you big time.

    If your preference is for the Italian style of coffee using dark roasted beans to make intense, punchy, sugar-bolstered espresso then I suspect sieving offers you little. It may even take your coffee backwards.

    And if milk coffee is your thing then sieving should not be on your short list as it unlikely it will make little difference you can taste in the cup.

    And as for me, well I’m definitely going to explore sieving further. I’m fascinated what it will do to the taste of the gorgeous Colombian Esperanza Gesha I bought from CoffeeSnobs BeanBay and have ageing on my shelf right now.
    Last edited by ccgnome; 4th February 2017 at 08:25 PM.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    707
    Thanks ccgnome... what a fabulous post!

  27. #27
    Senior Member LFM60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by kwantfm View Post
    Thanks ccgnome... what a fabulous post!
    Agreed.
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA, perth
    Posts
    247
    awesome post. love the experimenting!

    any comments about static and the 200 and 300 micron sieves? (and even for the 800 sieve?) and what did you do to rectify those issues
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  29. #29
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    Great review, ccgnome .

    Maybe I'll grab one to try - probably not something I'd use as a matter of routine, but I wonder if it could be useful to compare the performance of different grinders, and to gauge burr wear over time. Cheaper than a spectrometer!
    matth3wh likes this.

  30. #30
    Rbn
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Southland NZ
    Posts
    434
    Many thanks to all.
    A very interesting read, and since I love a double with silky milk, I will forget the Kruve.
    And made with an EM 480, EM 6910 (which has done over 10,000 shots)
    Dimal likes this.

  31. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by timdimdom View Post
    awesome post. love the experimenting!

    any comments about static and the 200 and 300 micron sieves? (and even for the 800 sieve?) and what did you do to rectify those issues
    I keep the current coffee I'm using in the freezer as I think it ends up tasting a little better in the cup compared to coffee ground at room temperature. One of the side benefits is you get some slight water condensation on the outside of the cold beans and this reduces static electricity issues with both the grinder and the sieves. Not much use if you live in central Australia with near zero humidity

  32. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Matt View Post
    Great review, ccgnome .

    Maybe I'll grab one to try - probably not something I'd use as a matter of routine, but I wonder if it could be useful to compare the performance of different grinders, and to gauge burr wear over time. Cheaper than a spectrometer!
    Yes I had the same thoughts about using the Kruve for plotting grind particle size distribution - it would be most useful when evaluating grinders. Sure a 12 bar histogram is not as elegant as a continuous plot put I doubt any conclusion you could draw from the histogram would be any different to that from a continuous curve. Pity I bought the six sieve set, the 12 would be much better suited to this role.

    If you used a Kruve for this task you'd want to ensure you shook the Kruve long enough for absolutely everything to come through the sieves. That could be up to five minutes of shaking.
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  33. #33
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    So a few weeks on - how is everyone finding these? Effective? Practical? Useful?
    timdimdom likes this.

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    143
    Having used the filter set for about a week now, here are my initial impressions.

    For my purposes, I think the greatest return will be in eliminating fines for pourover/aeropress use.

    Is it worth the additional effort required? For me, it is just an adjustment to my routine while waiting for the kettle to boil. Instead of grind, it is now grind and sift. About a minute of shaking seems to achieve adequate separation.

    I have been using the 800um and 400um screens. While Kruve recommend a 900/500 mix for aeropress use, these were not available in the filter set I received. I have been using a Helor 101 with conventional burr set at 24 clicks or 2 turns out from zero. The <400um fines are minimal and don't represent any great wastage to me. At this setting the boulders are so few, and so uniform and close to 800um, that I have just been adding them back to the 400-800 grinds after blowing off any chalf. Haven't done this yet, but going finer on the grind should further reduce the >800 boulders.

    After sifting I weigh the resulting grinds in the aeropress and apply the recommended brew ratio of 1:15 for each brew. No downside in the cup, for me at least.

    There is some static retention. I have decided to deal with this by just wiping out with a damp microfibre cloth. Another option would be to just rinse the sieves and leave to air dry. The anodised aluminium/stainless steel construction is compatible with either method. I haven't experimented yet, but think that adding moisture to combat static would just result in clogging of screens.

    The benefits, as I see them, are the optimising of your grind settings, and that the process encourages greater attention to your brew ratio.

    Again, is it worth it? Each to their own but, for me, any positives outweigh the negatives and it's a keeper.
    Magic_Matt and timdimdom like this.

  35. #35
    Senior Member artman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,187
    I got a set and have used them a few times.

    My observations are that it produced a very nice flavoured pour over brews. No bitterness at all. As above, taking out his the fines is what seems to be the best benefit of this kit and also seeing that I was grinding too course for pour over (based on the recommended sieves).

    For espresso it takes too long, just too fine / wet to sift efficiently I reckon. I was sifting for a few minutes and the fines just kept coming. I could also notice the loss of aromas off the grinds as sifting progressed. Adding a bit more fresh grinds brought the aroma back so it wasn't me imagining things.

    It is a very well made but of kit, real quality.

    Cheers
    Magic_Matt, timdimdom and Otago like this.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA, perth
    Posts
    247
    thanks for the posts guys this is gold.
    i suspected that sifting for espresso would be counter productive considering you are not just leaving ground beans out in the air but actually agitating them for much more than 30secs. considering the fineness of grind for espresso i woudl've imagine it'd be almost trying to stale your grounds before you extracted.

    loved the feedback on filter though. think it might be enough for me to want to bite on a set...... haha. love that it validates your grinder as well and tells you if you're too coarse/fine. im such a fan of objective measures.
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  37. #37
    Senior Member 2muchcoffeeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    166
    I'm in the same boat as the others. Using mine (sometimes) for cleaner tasting manual methods as I normally use stainless or mesh filters. Hate paper...

    For espresso, it's too fiddly for me.
    Magic_Matt and Otago like this.

  38. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    18
    Here are a few observations gleaned from using the Kruve for some weeks with different coffees to make espresso.

    First the general improvement in taste the cup holds up for every coffee I tested though curiously the better coffees such as premium lightly roasted single origins, benefited least while darker roasted blends benefited most.

    Second the degree of improvement is subtle and by way of comparison is dwarfed by differences between different beans.

    Third the "improvement" is more of a change in the taste profile rather than an across-the-board enhancement. Clarity is unquestionably improved, bitterness is diminished somewhat while the acidity is a little fruitier and less aggressive. Overall the coffee taste is more mellow and easier to drink. In fact "mellow" is the word my non coffee-enthusiast friends consistently used to describe the sieved vs unsieved coffee.

    While I understand why you could describe the sieved coffee as mellow it carries a connotation of bland which is unfortunate as it is simply not bland and in some ways the opposite of bland. That's because two things are going on here: one set of changes that make the coffee more bland and others making it less bland. The best way I could describe the taste changes of sieving is by analogy. I apologise in advance for this is inevitably going to sound pretentious but I have no words in the vocabulary of coffee tasting that I can usefully use to describe what I am trying to communicate. OK let's start with a visual analogy. Imagine the kind of changes in a photo if you used an image editor to increase the photo's colour saturation while at the same time reducing its dynamic range. If that doesn't mean anything to you then let's try an audio analogy. Imagine the changes in sound if you increase mid range liquidity while at the same time restricting macro dynamics. If you can relate to either of these analogies then you'll have a good idea why mellow is not quite the right word. If neither of these are helpful to you I apologise again. If so, just go with "mellow but not bland."

    Now whether "mellow" is better, whether "fruity acidity" is better and whether the other changes are better all depends on your taste in coffee. For me I'm happy to say the sieved coffee IS better and so did most of my non-enthusiast friends. But if you dislike brightness in your coffee and/or like strong punchy coffee then you may well find sieving is not for you.
    Last edited by ccgnome; 24th February 2017 at 03:43 PM.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    133
    Awesome posts ccgnome, best I've read in a while, thanks for taking the time.

  40. #40
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    Very interesting write up, thanks cgnome.

    I've picked up the secondhand Kruve in the marketplace, so I'll report back soon! Will primarily use it with my Comandante and Trinity One, but might experiment with how it impacts espresso as well in my setup.

  41. #41
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    First impression: gosh, it's big!

  42. #42
    Senior Member trentski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Altona, Melbourne
    Posts
    1,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic_Matt View Post
    First impression: gosh, it's big!
    The number of times ive heard that
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  43. #43
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    Quote Originally Posted by trentski View Post
    The number of times ive heard that


    I walked right into that...

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    143
    As the actress said to the Bishop ( on a dark night)
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  45. #45
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344

    Kruve sifter

    Ok, first test... espresso (simply because I don't have any beans roasted appropriately for anything else).

    Using the 200 and 500 micron filters and shaking for a little over a minute, I lost a total of 2.2g from 24.6. About 0.5g of that was boulders, and under 1/10g was fines, but most was within the limits but adhering to the underside of the top filter that I didn't notice!

    The shot itself was lousy, largely due to underdosing (normal dose is 24g with this basket), poor distribution and uneven tamp

    So there you go. There's no way I'll be using it regularly for espresso, and never intended to, but I might work my way a bit higher on the lower filter to find out just how consistent a grind the ECM throws out.
    Last edited by Magic_Matt; 7th March 2017 at 06:12 PM. Reason: Updating with real numbers...
    Dimal likes this.

  46. #46
    Senior Member Magic_Matt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northlandia
    Posts
    1,344
    Second test: 17g through my new Comandante at medium grind; used 300 and 500 micron filters.

    A tiny dusting of fines came through - more actually gathered in the boulders chamber than the bottom. But still a negligible total.

    Cup was terrific - very clean for a metal filter brew (Able fine Aeropress disc).

    Don't know that I'll be needing the Kruve with my grinder lineup, but I'll keep swapping filters around to get a feel for the grind consistency. Might be interesting to compare in some time to see how burr wear affects it (though with ti burrs in the Titan it might take a while to have any meaningful difference... ).
    Otago likes this.

  47. #47
    Site Sponsor
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2
    Hello all,

    This is Marek from KRUVE. I just wanted to say Hi and that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the Sifter.

    Cheers

    Marek
    Magic_Matt likes this.

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    641
    Thanks Marek. I enjoy your product. Do you have or plan to have a larger sifter for more coffee? When I make a large French press I need to sift around 100g of coffee and this doesnt work well in the current size Kruve.

    Also, the manual sifting is getting old. Do you have any electrical/battery powered stands at a reasonable cost for the sifter to sit on to vibrate the grinds through?
    Magic_Matt and level3ninja like this.

  49. #49
    Site Sponsor
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbroaster View Post
    Thanks Marek. I enjoy your product. Do you have or plan to have a larger sifter for more coffee? When I make a large French press I need to sift around 100g of coffee and this doesnt work well in the current size Kruve.

    Also, the manual sifting is getting old. Do you have any electrical/battery powered stands at a reasonable cost for the sifter to sit on to vibrate the grinds through?
    Thank you.

    These are two very common questions. The short answer to them is no to the larger version and no to the powered base. We tested different options to automate the process but you need large aggressive motions to make the sifting process work effectively. The shaker would look more like a paint shaker rather than a base you set the product on. As for the larger version, while this isn't out of the picture completely, we will most likely not have a larger version for 2018.

  50. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Hobart TAS
    Posts
    143
    Behmor Brazen - $249 - Free Freight
    Kruve are putting out a teaser for release of a new product. Be interested to see what this is.
    I am still using the Kruve regularly at home (for Aeropress) but don't bother when travelling.
    Magic_Matt likes this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •