I asked for and got a KA professional 5+ mixer for Christmas. It
claimed 12 cups flour capacity for bread. I mixed up a batch using 9
cups of flour. Half was All-purpose and half was Bread flour. It took
less than a minute for the mixer to come to a dead stop. Even after
waiting for the motor to reset it would quickly stop again. I ended up
doing the kneading by hand.

I called Kitchen Aid to find out what the issue might be and was told
it would only handle 6 cups of flour other than All-Purpose flour as
used in the recipes in the book that comes with the mixer.
I was suprised that this altered limited amount was 1/2 of the promised
12 cups and that they hide that issue in their marketing. The 6 cup
limit is not printed in their manual nor on their site.

Has anyone else experienced this disappointment?

In article . com>,
Cooptville > wrote:
>I asked for and got a KA professional 5+ mixer for Christmas. It
>claimed 12 cups flour capacity for bread. I mixed up a batch using 9
>cups of flour. Half was All-purpose and half was Bread flour. It took
>less than a minute for the mixer to come to a dead stop. Even after
>waiting for the motor to reset it would quickly stop again. I ended up
>doing the kneading by hand.
>
>I called Kitchen Aid to find out what the issue might be and was told
>it would only handle 6 cups of flour other than All-Purpose flour as
>used in the recipes in the book that comes with the mixer.
>I was suprised that this altered limited amount was 1/2 of the promised
>12 cups and that they hide that issue in their marketing. The 6 cup
>limit is not printed in their manual nor on their site.
>
>Has anyone else experienced this disappointment?

I've used 6+ cups of bread flour in my Artisan, which is less fancy than
your version, without any real issues. The resultant dough tends to
overflow a bit and tends to climb up above the shield on the dough hook,
but the motor doesn't have any real problems with it.

Could it be an issue of gradualness? I've tended to start with a 1:1
flour:water ratio, let sit for an hour, and then gradually add in the
rest of the flour in the recipe during mixing.

In article . com>,
"Cooptville" > wrote:

> I asked for and got a KA professional 5+ mixer for Christmas. It
> claimed 12 cups flour capacity for bread. I mixed up a batch using 9
> cups of flour. Half was All-purpose and half was Bread flour. It took
> less than a minute for the mixer to come to a dead stop. Even after
> waiting for the motor to reset it would quickly stop again. I ended up
> doing the kneading by hand.
>
> I called Kitchen Aid to find out what the issue might be and was told
> it would only handle 6 cups of flour other than All-Purpose flour as
> used in the recipes in the book that comes with the mixer.
> I was suprised that this altered limited amount was 1/2 of the promised
> 12 cups and that they hide that issue in their marketing. The 6 cup
> limit is not printed in their manual nor on their site.
>
> Has anyone else experienced this disappointment?

If return is an option I would consider it.

I have never owned one but think the KA is probably overrated and
benefits from a deep ingrained sense that it is "the best" among
American buyers. I do not know if this was true when it was a Hobart
product.

I own a Braun Kitchen Machine K1000 (no longer available in the US,
current model is probably K3000 and has a stainless bowl). See:

http://www.braun.com/global/products...ion/kitchenmac
hines/multisystem.html

It uses one power unit to drive either a mixing bowl, or food processor
bowl or blender (so three appliances rolled into one with a relatively
compact footprint).

It can easily handle large amounts of dough (they advertise 4 Kg of
dough). I routinely make about 2.5 Kg of 100% whole wheat and have made
larger amounts from time to time. I have never succeeded in stalling
the machine. The machine was ineffective with 100% rye because the
dough is a paste and the hooks cut through it and it does not kneed but
this would be true for any mixer. The dough mixing bowl has a cover
that seals so there is no question of dough creeping out. The one
theoretical downside is that the bowl in my generation was plastic and
so could not be chilled with an ice bath like the KA.

For a serious dough mixer consider a Bosch, DLX or Santos or import the
Braun from a 110 volt Euro country. I do not know if it is sold in
Canada. Some of the machines are single taskers (Santos for example).
I liked the Braun because it was a true multi tasker and a Bosch would
be comparable but more $$ when you take into account the cost of add ons
you can buy.

The Braun is an example of great design (a very early model is in the
Museum of Modern Art collection) see:

http://www.moma.org/collection/brows...O%3AAD%3AE%3A7
356&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1

Roland

In article >, ()
wrote:

> I've used 6+ cups of bread flour in my Artisan, which is less fancy than
> your version, without any real issues. The resultant dough tends to
> overflow a bit and tends to climb up above the shield on the dough hook,
> but the motor doesn't have any real problems with it.
>
> Could it be an issue of gradualness? I've tended to start with a 1:1
> flour:water ratio, let sit for an hour, and then gradually add in the
> rest of the flour in the recipe during mixing.

What you describe may be a practical workaround but I really do not see
why you should have to work around the limitations of the machine and
still consider it "good".

While I think an autolyse may be good, working with a sponge may be good
etc. etc. I do not want any kitchen machine I buy to impose too many
restrictions in how I work with the dough. I.e. the machine should be
fully capable of executing at least its advertised flour handling
capacity with no demands in technique imposed on the user. Limitations
are particularly irksome in the KitchenAid price range - it might be
acceptable in a $100 Oster but unacceptable for KA.

I think the preeminent reputation of the KA should be challenged when it
falls short.

Roland

In Joe Doe
> wrote:

> What you describe may be a practical workaround but I really do not
> see why you should have to work around the limitations of the machine
> and still consider it "good".

If you want a machine with no limitations that you "have to work
around", you'll have to look elsewhere and pay for it.

Of course, you'll have to be careful to specify just what limits you
want to eliminate.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In article >,
Bert Hyman > wrote:

> In Joe Doe
> > wrote:
>
> > What you describe may be a practical workaround but I really do not
> > see why you should have to work around the limitations of the machine
> > and still consider it "good".
>
> If you want a machine with no limitations that you "have to work
> around", you'll have to look elsewhere and pay for it.
>
> Of course, you'll have to be careful to specify just what limits you
> want to eliminate.

The specific limitation I discussed and you snipped was it meeting its
specification wrt to cups of flour it can handle that are prominently
advertised on the outside box of KA.

For me personally, I have no problem - I own a machine I like as my
other post explains more fully.

The post was really an attempt to get it into the record that there are
better machines for dough handling than the KA and somebody doing due
diligence might find them with a search.

The positive spin on the Kitchen Aid is so high that I doubt that most
casual shoppers will discover its shortcomings BEFORE they buy it.

As you point out it might not matter a great deal for a lot of people -
e.g. if you do not make dough but use the KA for whipping etc. it may in
fact be a superior choice because the metal bowl can be iced with an
attachment.

Roland.

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:05:39 -0600, Joe Doe >
wrote:

>I own a Braun Kitchen Machine K1000 (no longer available in the US,
>current model is probably K3000 and has a stainless bowl). See:
>
>http://www.braun.com/global/products...ion/kitchenmac
>hines/multisystem.html

Unfortunately, those pages advise that the current Multisystem is not
available in North America, either. 8;(

-- Larry

In article >,
pltrgyst > wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:05:39 -0600, Joe Doe >
> wrote:
>
> >I own a Braun Kitchen Machine K1000 (no longer available in the US,
> >current model is probably K3000 and has a stainless bowl). See:
> >
> >http://www.braun.com/global/products...ion/kitchenmac
> >hines/multisystem.html
>
> Unfortunately, those pages advise that the current Multisystem is not
> available in North America, either. 8;(
>
> -- Larry

Apologies this part of my post was unclear.

I meant no Braun Multisystem is available not merely the K1000 (this was
clarified when I alluded to importing from a European 110 Volt country
later in the post).

The strong market position of KA really makes it hard for any challenger
to enter. Even what should be knowledgeable reviewers fall short. For
example the editors at Cooks Illustrated dissed the DLX because they
claimed they could not get used to its strange kneading action etc.
The DLX is definitely a better mixer if one needs high capacity.

Roland

"Joe Doe" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> pltrgyst > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:05:39 -0600, Joe Doe >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I own a Braun Kitchen Machine K1000 (no longer available in the US,
>> >current model is probably K3000 and has a stainless bowl). See:
>> >
>> >http://www.braun.com/global/products...ion/kitchenmac
>> >hines/multisystem.html
>>
>> Unfortunately, those pages advise that the current Multisystem is not
>> available in North America, either. 8;(
>>
>> -- Larry
>
> Apologies this part of my post was unclear.
>
> I meant no Braun Multisystem is available not merely the K1000 (this
> was
> clarified when I alluded to importing from a European 110 Volt country
> later in the post).
>
> The strong market position of KA really makes it hard for any
> challenger
> to enter. Even what should be knowledgeable reviewers fall short. For
> example the editors at Cooks Illustrated dissed the DLX because they
> claimed they could not get used to its strange kneading action etc.
> The DLX is definitely a better mixer if one needs high capacity.
>
> Roland

What do you mean "couldn't get used to its strange kneading action"? Got
a reference? Usually they just consider the results, although they may
have attributed poorer results to "strange...."

In article >,
"Del Cecchi" > wrote:

> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
Even what should be knowledgeable reviewers fall short. For
> > example the editors at Cooks Illustrated dissed the DLX because they
> > claimed they could not get used to its strange kneading action etc.
> > The DLX is definitely a better mixer if one needs high capacity.
> >
> > Roland
>
> What do you mean "couldn't get used to its strange kneading action"? Got
> a reference? Usually they just consider the results, although they may
> have attributed poorer results to "strange...."

I do not subscribe to them. A net search yields a cut and paste of the
review here (scroll down a bit):

http://recipeexchange.tribe.net/thre...663-2cad891ef4
28


Where Cooks Illustrated state: "Another stationary-style mixer, albeit a
more unusual design, the Electrolux DLX-2000 ($469.95) has a rotating
bowl and all its inherent problems (ingredients get clogged on the
agitator while the bowl spins ineffectually)." They probably never
learned how to use it and that affected all the "tests" they performed
like dough mixing efficiency.

Anyway they rated it quite poorly - I do not know what their capsule
review accompanying the text stated. Perhaps someone who subscribes can
fill us in.

If you search the LA times has a similar poor review for similar
reasons. Most actual owners of the DLX LOVE it as witnessed by the
Yahoo Newsgroup dedicated to it. It probably does take a learning curve
to use but it offers a pretty huge capacity as compensation.

If you see any review the Kitchen Aid always wins but in actual use the
number one complaint is inability to deal with large amounts of dough
followed by stripping of a nylon gear that is supposed to protect the
motor from overload.

Roland

On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:25:53 -0600, Joe Doe >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Del Cecchi" > wrote:
>
>> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
> Even what should be knowledgeable reviewers fall short. For
>> > example the editors at Cooks Illustrated dissed the DLX because they
>> > claimed they could not get used to its strange kneading action etc.
>> > The DLX is definitely a better mixer if one needs high capacity.
>> >
>> > Roland
>>
>> What do you mean "couldn't get used to its strange kneading action"? Got
>> a reference? Usually they just consider the results, although they may
>> have attributed poorer results to "strange...."
>
>I do not subscribe to them. A net search yields a cut and paste of the
>review here (scroll down a bit):
>
>http://recipeexchange.tribe.net/thre...663-2cad891ef4
>28
>
>
>Where Cooks Illustrated state: "Another stationary-style mixer, albeit a
>more unusual design, the Electrolux DLX-2000 ($469.95) has a rotating
>bowl and all its inherent problems (ingredients get clogged on the
>agitator while the bowl spins ineffectually)." They probably never
>learned how to use it and that affected all the "tests" they performed
>like dough mixing efficiency.
>
>Anyway they rated it quite poorly - I do not know what their capsule
>review accompanying the text stated. Perhaps someone who subscribes can
>fill us in.
>
>If you search the LA times has a similar poor review for similar
>reasons. Most actual owners of the DLX LOVE it as witnessed by the
>Yahoo Newsgroup dedicated to it. It probably does take a learning curve
>to use but it offers a pretty huge capacity as compensation.
>
>If you see any review the Kitchen Aid always wins but in actual use the
>number one complaint is inability to deal with large amounts of dough
>followed by stripping of a nylon gear that is supposed to protect the
>motor from overload.
>
>Roland


One of the primary reasons the DLX was downgraded by CI as that it did
a poor job of creaming. It does. I have one and use it all the time
for bread baking, but in simple tasks such as creaming the butter
sugar and eggs for a cake or cookie recipe, the DLX is a PITA. I use
my Kenwood for that. The DLX is a specialty machine and it excels in
its area of specialty.

I love mine and would never part with it, and felt that CI really did
not understand its use at all.

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:25:53 -0600, Joe Doe >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Del Cecchi" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Joe Doe" > wrote in message
>> Even what should be knowledgeable reviewers fall short. For
>>> > example the editors at Cooks Illustrated dissed the DLX because
>>> > they
>>> > claimed they could not get used to its strange kneading action
>>> > etc.
>>> > The DLX is definitely a better mixer if one needs high capacity.
>>> >
>>> > Roland
>>>
>>> What do you mean "couldn't get used to its strange kneading action"?
>>> Got
>>> a reference? Usually they just consider the results, although they
>>> may
>>> have attributed poorer results to "strange...."
>>
>>I do not subscribe to them. A net search yields a cut and paste of the
>>review here (scroll down a bit):
>>
>>http://recipeexchange.tribe.net/thre...663-2cad891ef4
>>28
>>
>>
>>Where Cooks Illustrated state: "Another stationary-style mixer, albeit
>>a
>>more unusual design, the Electrolux DLX-2000 ($469.95) has a rotating
>>bowl and all its inherent problems (ingredients get clogged on the
>>agitator while the bowl spins ineffectually)." They probably never
>>learned how to use it and that affected all the "tests" they performed
>>like dough mixing efficiency.
>>
>>Anyway they rated it quite poorly - I do not know what their capsule
>>review accompanying the text stated. Perhaps someone who subscribes
>>can
>>fill us in.
>>
>>If you search the LA times has a similar poor review for similar
>>reasons. Most actual owners of the DLX LOVE it as witnessed by the
>>Yahoo Newsgroup dedicated to it. It probably does take a learning
>>curve
>>to use but it offers a pretty huge capacity as compensation.
>>
>>If you see any review the Kitchen Aid always wins but in actual use the
>>number one complaint is inability to deal with large amounts of dough
>>followed by stripping of a nylon gear that is supposed to protect the
>>motor from overload.
>>
>>Roland
>
>
> One of the primary reasons the DLX was downgraded by CI as that it did
> a poor job of creaming. It does. I have one and use it all the time
> for bread baking, but in simple tasks such as creaming the butter
> sugar and eggs for a cake or cookie recipe, the DLX is a PITA. I use
> my Kenwood for that. The DLX is a specialty machine and it excels in
> its area of specialty.
>
> I love mine and would never part with it, and felt that CI really did
> not understand its use at all.
>
> Boron

I appears they were testing as if one would only purchase a single mixer,
not a fleet. I guess if all you use a stand mixer for is bread then the
answers might be different. And thanks for the link.

del

Boron Elgar wrote:
> One of the primary reasons the DLX was downgraded by CI as that it did
> a poor job of creaming. It does. I have one and use it all the time
> for bread baking, but in simple tasks such as creaming the butter
> sugar and eggs for a cake or cookie recipe, the DLX is a PITA. I use
> my Kenwood for that. The DLX is a specialty machine and it excels in
> its area of specialty.
>
> I love mine and would never part with it, and felt that CI really did
> not understand its use at all.
>
As I recall, CI also felt that it was very inefficient at mixing, taking longer than other mixers to evenly distribute a few drops of food color in a batch of bread dough. It's an unusual mixer and I don't think they bothered to learn how to use it. The DLX manual can be a bit ambiguous, but that's no excuse for the poor review.

I bought a DLX two years ago after my KA Professional died after a year's use. When I started looking for a replacement for the KA, I joined the mixer-owners group at Yahoo! and found lots of positive comments about the DLX. It's turned out to be an excellent choice. Although I use it mostly for making bread dough, it does nearly every other task well, too. It has three mixing mechanisms. There's a dough hook for kneading larger quantities of dough, a roller/scraper mechanism for most general-purpose mixing (including kneading dough, too), and a dual wire whisk. I use the whisk for creaming and whipping, and I've found it does a very satisfactory job. In practice, though, I use a Braun hand mixer for whipping and creaming because clean-up is easier.

Coincidentally, someone on the mixer-owners group just posted this URL <http://www.everythingkitchens.com/electroluxvideo.html> of a video that demonstrates how the DLX works.

Andy..................

Andy Boze wrote:
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> One of the primary reasons the DLX was downgraded by CI as that it did
>> a poor job of creaming. It does. I have one and use it all the time
>> for bread baking, but in simple tasks such as creaming the butter
>> sugar and eggs for a cake or cookie recipe, the DLX is a PITA. I use
>> my Kenwood for that. The DLX is a specialty machine and it excels in
>> its area of specialty.
>>
>> I love mine and would never part with it, and felt that CI really did
>> not understand its use at all.
>>
> As I recall, CI also felt that it was very inefficient at mixing, taking
> longer than other mixers to evenly distribute a few drops of food color
> in a batch of bread dough. It's an unusual mixer and I don't think they
> bothered to learn how to use it. The DLX manual can be a bit ambiguous,
> but that's no excuse for the poor review.
>
> I bought a DLX two years ago after my KA Professional died after a
> year's use. When I started looking for a replacement for the KA, I
> joined the mixer-owners group at Yahoo! and found lots of positive
> comments about the DLX. It's turned out to be an excellent choice.
> Although I use it mostly for making bread dough, it does nearly every
> other task well, too. It has three mixing mechanisms. There's a dough
> hook for kneading larger quantities of dough, a roller/scraper mechanism
> for most general-purpose mixing (including kneading dough, too), and a
> dual wire whisk. I use the whisk for creaming and whipping, and I've
> found it does a very satisfactory job. In practice, though, I use a
> Braun hand mixer for whipping and creaming because clean-up is easier.
>
> Coincidentally, someone on the mixer-owners group just posted this URL
> <http://www.everythingkitchens.com/electroluxvideo.html> of a video that
> demonstrates how the DLX works.
>
> Andy..................

So, do you think that the mixing test was invalid? Or that they should
have done something differently to get a better result? What is it that
makes you say they didn't know how to use this mixer, besides them
rating it low.?

I don't get what one has to learn in order to use this mixer? It has a
bowl, a dough hook, and the roller thing. What is the process for
making bread dough with it?

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Joe Doe wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> "Cooptville" > wrote:
>
> > I asked for and got a KA professional 5+ mixer for Christmas. It
> > claimed 12 cups flour capacity for bread. I mixed up a batch using 9
> > cups of flour. Half was All-purpose and half was Bread flour. It took
> > less than a minute for the mixer to come to a dead stop. Even after
> > waiting for the motor to reset it would quickly stop again. I ended up
> > doing the kneading by hand.
> >
> > I called Kitchen Aid to find out what the issue might be and was told
> > it would only handle 6 cups of flour other than All-Purpose flour as
> > used in the recipes in the book that comes with the mixer.
> > I was suprised that this altered limited amount was 1/2 of the promised
> > 12 cups and that they hide that issue in their marketing. The 6 cup
> > limit is not printed in their manual nor on their site.
> >
> > Has anyone else experienced this disappointment?
>
> If return is an option I would consider it.
>
> I have never owned one but think the KA is probably overrated and
> benefits from a deep ingrained sense that it is "the best" among
> American buyers. I do not know if this was true when it was a Hobart
> product.
>
> I own a Braun Kitchen Machine K1000 (no longer available in the US,
> current model is probably K3000 and has a stainless bowl). See:
>
> http://www.braun.com/global/products...ion/kitchenmac
> hines/multisystem.html
>
> It uses one power unit to drive either a mixing bowl, or food processor
> bowl or blender (so three appliances rolled into one with a relatively
> compact footprint).
>
> It can easily handle large amounts of dough (they advertise 4 Kg of
> dough). I routinely make about 2.5 Kg of 100% whole wheat and have made
> larger amounts from time to time. I have never succeeded in stalling
> the machine. The machine was ineffective with 100% rye because the
> dough is a paste and the hooks cut through it and it does not kneed but
> this would be true for any mixer. The dough mixing bowl has a cover
> that seals so there is no question of dough creeping out. The one
> theoretical downside is that the bowl in my generation was plastic and
> so could not be chilled with an ice bath like the KA.
>
> For a serious dough mixer consider a Bosch, DLX or Santos or import the
> Braun from a 110 volt Euro country. I do not know if it is sold in
> Canada. Some of the machines are single taskers (Santos for example).
> I liked the Braun because it was a true multi tasker and a Bosch would
> be comparable but more $$ when you take into account the cost of add ons
> you can buy.
>
> The Braun is an example of great design (a very early model is in the
> Museum of Modern Art collection) see:
>
> http://www.moma.org/collection/brows...O%3AAD%3AE%3A7
> 356&page_number=1&template_id=1&sort_order=1
>
> Roland

http://www.hobartcorp.com/hobartg5/p...pages/features

15# heavier, real gear transmission, induction motor and 4X+ the price
of the KA version, but it kicks butt in the same size and form factor.

Pete C.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:



>
> http://www.hobartcorp.com/hobartg5/p...pages/features
>
> 15# heavier, real gear transmission, induction motor and 4X+ the price
> of the KA version, but it kicks butt in the same size and form factor.
>
> Pete C.

If you look at Hobart's capacity chart they do not recommend the N50 for
most heavy duty dough mixing tasks. The only dough it is is rated for
is 5 pounds of a 60% hydration "light medium" bread or roll dough and 3
pounds of pie. The 12 QT model HL120 is rated for dough in the 5-12
pounds range and even this is not rated to be able to handle pasta
dough. I realize these are conservative ratings.

See

http://www.hobartcorp.com/hobartg6/p...B6B9A66AB98525
6C090043D948/$file/F-7701(9-05).pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/ydwal7

If I were to buy a mixer today I would buy the most powerful Bosch if I
was looking for something with multi tasking ability or the Electrolux
DLX if I wanted very high capacity and mainly bread dough.

Roland

Joe Doe wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.hobartcorp.com/hobartg5/p...pages/features
> >
> > 15# heavier, real gear transmission, induction motor and 4X+ the price
> > of the KA version, but it kicks butt in the same size and form factor.
> >
> > Pete C.
>
> If you look at Hobart's capacity chart they do not recommend the N50 for
> most heavy duty dough mixing tasks. The only dough it is is rated for
> is 5 pounds of a 60% hydration "light medium" bread or roll dough and 3
> pounds of pie. The 12 QT model HL120 is rated for dough in the 5-12
> pounds range and even this is not rated to be able to handle pasta
> dough. I realize these are conservative ratings.
>
> See
>
> http://www.hobartcorp.com/hobartg6/p...B6B9A66AB98525
> 6C090043D948/$file/F-7701(9-05).pdf
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ydwal7
>
> If I were to buy a mixer today I would buy the most powerful Bosch if I
> was looking for something with multi tasking ability or the Electrolux
> DLX if I wanted very high capacity and mainly bread dough.
>
> Roland

I'm real happy with the N50 in my kitchen. It is my home kitchen and I'm
not a pro baker though. Either way, it is vastly beefier than the KA
version and uses the same attachments.

Pete C.

Del Cecchi wrote:
> So, do you think that the mixing test was invalid? Or that they should
> have done something differently to get a better result? What is it that
> makes you say they didn't know how to use this mixer, besides them
> rating it low.?

It's hard to say whether the CI mixing test was valid. I don't believe that they commented on how they set up the mixer or performed the test. I don't think they stated whether they used the dough hook or the roller/scraper. All I know is that my results are different from theirs, not only for the dough test, but for just about all their other tests, too. I'll admit that I haven't actually performed "tests" as they did. My judgments are from a couple of years of experience.

>
> I don't get what one has to learn in order to use this mixer? It has a
> bowl, a dough hook, and the roller thing. What is the process for
> making bread dough with it?

It's a very different mixer than most Americans are used to. There's a bit of a learning curve, more for some people than for others. I felt pretty comfortable with it after a couple of weeks. It's hard to describe how to make bread dough. I don't use the hook; I prefer the roller/scraper. I start with the roller against the side of the bowl to mix a batter with maybe a third of the flour, moving the roller to the center of the bowl occasionally to make sure all the ingredients are incorporated. Then I start adding the remaining flour. As I do that, I increase the distance of the roller from the bowl. The distance depends on the amount of dough. When the dough reaches the right consistency, I set the timer and let it go.

If you really want to know how it works, I have the English section of the manual at <http://base12.home.comcast.net/DLX2000.pdf>.

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:19:15 -0500, Andy Boze >
wrote:

>Del Cecchi wrote:
>> So, do you think that the mixing test was invalid? Or that they should
>> have done something differently to get a better result? What is it that
>> makes you say they didn't know how to use this mixer, besides them
>> rating it low.?
>
>It's hard to say whether the CI mixing test was valid. I don't believe that they commented on how they set up the mixer or performed the test. I don't think they stated whether they used the dough hook or the roller/scraper. All I know is that my results are different from theirs, not only for the dough test, but for just about all their other tests, too. I'll admit that I haven't actually performed "tests" as they did. My judgments are from a couple of years of experience.
>
>>
>> I don't get what one has to learn in order to use this mixer? It has a
>> bowl, a dough hook, and the roller thing. What is the process for
>> making bread dough with it?
>
>It's a very different mixer than most Americans are used to. There's a bit of a learning curve, more for some people than for others. I felt pretty comfortable with it after a couple of weeks. It's hard to describe how to make bread dough. I don't use the hook; I prefer the roller/scraper. I start with the roller against the side of the bowl to mix a batter with maybe a third of the flour, moving the roller to the center of the bowl occasionally to make sure all the ingredients are incorporated. Then I start adding the remaining flour. As I do that, I increase the distance of the roller from the bowl. The distance depends on the amount of dough. When the dough reaches the right consistency, I set the timer and let it go.
>
>If you really want to know how it works, I have the English section of the manual at <http://base12.home.comcast.net/DLX2000.pdf>.


You have described the DLX use perfectly. Though I have the dough
hook, in fact, two of them (don't ask), I also use the roller for
bread dough, also.

The machine is a breeze to use, once one gets used to it, and is a
work horse. I have made very large batches of multi-grain bread in it,
with 5 - 7 lbs of white/whole wheat/rye/spelt flours, etc...it never
burps.

Boron