Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kruve sifter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Magic_Matt View Post
      Great review, ccgnome [emoji122].

      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.

      Comment


      • #33
        So a few weeks on - how is everyone finding these? Effective? Practical? Useful?

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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

            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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; 24 February 2017, 04:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Awesome posts ccgnome, best I've read in a while, thanks for taking the time.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        First impression: gosh, it's big!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Magic_Matt View Post
                          First impression: gosh, it's big!
                          The number of times ive heard that [emoji23]

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by trentski View Post
                            The number of times ive heard that [emoji23]
                            [emoji23]

                            I walked right into that...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              As the actress said to the Bishop ( on a dark night)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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 [emoji849]

                                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; 7 March 2017, 07:12 PM. Reason: Updating with real numbers...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X