Mlink in the building.

[GraphicDisorder]

I just can't wrap my head around spending $20k today to save $3 a shirt tomorrow.

For someone that doesn't have a CTS yet I'd think that $20k would serve them better by buying one of those or something.

One way to think of it is, would you buy an embroidery machine for $20,000 if it only made you $3 per garment?

Well in the example being used its over $4, not $3. Adding $4 cost in a product I intend to sell for just $20 retail is pretty big difference per shirt. If you can't wrap you head around that...not sure I can help you. I intend to sell 1000's of prints a year off one of these once things get going, $4 per print or maybe as much as $6-8 per shirt time you do 2 sides is staggering ink difference over just a year even.  Also remember I am not even printing EITHER of these machines at my intended print size yet. Ink costs will be worse when the print size is correct.

I didn't buy this thing to run a couple shirts a week.  Id agree with you if that was the case.  I have been clear both are great machines. I wouldn't be scared of either. But we can't ignore ink costs.

[screenprintguy]

I think it's a kinda nobrainer at this point. If the MLink is rendering a better print, faster, and CHEAPER ink usage. No questions asked. If you plan to use the machine ALOT, duuuuhhhhhhh. Like buying a cheaper gas dryer only to pay more than double in gas usage, simple math over a 12 month period takes care of that. And if this is something you plan to, again, use alot and for several  years, well, the extra money up front for a better print and LESS consumable cost is again, no brainer, no matter what the brand is. In this case, it's an M&R MLink. I've had some stuff done that came from Brother machines, looks great, but didn't hold up nearly as good as the shirts that we demoed in Chicago on the M-Link. Not sure in the process what causes that, or gives a better washability, just like why a print can look as deep and vibrant on the M-Link and use 3 times less the ink. It's gotta be in the technology, which obviously, is what you pay for. Long term, this week of your testing Brandt, I feel shows serious favorability in the Blue corner from the results. Someone wanting to pony up the dough for the better results, well, you know how that goes. Stuff looks awesome. Start putting it to the test lots and lots and lots of washes because in the end, customers will come back and beotch if stuff fades and looks crappy after a month or so of washing.

[GraphicDisorder]

I was rooting for the Brother is whats funny.

[Gilligan]

My only concerns on ink cost is that it always seems that the M&R shirts are erring on the side of a darker print (on a dark shirt)... this means it's laying down less ink.

What if you took a 4"x4" square of straight white.  How would that compare?

What about something like CMYK 4 block grid on a royal blue shirt... how would that compare.  I'm just curious about getting full coverage before we really start comparing ink costs.  If the print isn't 1:1 then it's hard to really say one is less or more than another.  It's almost like comparing two different designs at that point.

[bulldog]

For what it's worth on the epson mod (from Belquette) I got the ink costs are much similar to the mlink. Obviously I don't have the same art to know for sure. Solid white prints cost about 2x a full color print. But I'm seeing somewhere around .80 for full color on black and 1.40 for solid white. That is in my limited testing so far. I just got it setup yesterday so I won't track anything until I figure everything out. Roughly 2-4 minutes a print. 2 extra minutes heat pressing. (Not counting heat press pretreat)

The new Belquette machine is impressive (I think it is more like 30k) but for me it is too new(not even to market yet, I believe). I want to wait until it is proven before I would try that.

[GraphicDisorder]

My only concerns on ink cost is that it always seems that the M&R shirts are erring on the side of a darker print (on a dark shirt)... this means it's laying down less ink.

What if you took a 4"x4" square of straight white.  How would that compare?

What about something like CMYK 4 block grid on a royal blue shirt... how would that compare.  I'm just curious about getting full coverage before we really start comparing ink costs.  If the print isn't 1:1 then it's hard to really say one is less or more than another.  It's almost like comparing two different designs at that point.

The prints are not darker on many, the kindigit print I've run on both machines and the M&R was a better brighter print, not night and day by any means though. I believe is post of it in the brother thread and this one.  More detail on the M&R In that example as well.  Seems the Brother only really has more detail is the greys in most cases so far.  If you do the math on the print example I shown the largest difference was white ink usage...  Not cmyk. 

I suppose we could run a circle or square of color or white but how is that logical real world for most shops.  It's not really.  I guess I like to print stuff I'd actually print and compare that first and foremost but maybe we will try it when time permits. 

As you continue to point out your precieved flaw in the M&R I'd argue the Brother is flawed the opposite way on several prints.  The Brother is blowing out images more than they should be as illustrated by the Legends shirt a few pages back.  The M&R was closer to correct. 

I am sure as we learn each machine prints will continue to improve but at the end of the day if they use exact same ink amount even, the M&R is punching in a much lower ink cost per cc and so far you seem to be the only one acting like that's no big deal. Are you even in the market for one?

[Gilligan]

I've always said they were equally wrong vs the original artwork.  No winner, both have a flaw that I am "perceiving".

I'm only saying that M&R might be erring on the side of less ink.  Maybe this is why those prints differ... Brother is more in the market of selling ink as we all know, so maybe they want you to use up ink.  More ink = "better print" and also more money in their pocket.  That's a win win for them since no one is doing what you are doing typically.

The big square of white is essentially like printing the half tone test on film and then having it tested with a densometer to make sure you are getting 50% dots where you are supposed to and such.  This would mean that you are sure that when it is laying down a solid block of white ink or yellow ink or whatever, it would be a way to dial up or back the ink to make sure you are laying down the right amount vs too much or too little.  One is important to the client and one is important to your bottom line.

This entire thread is poised to be a great academic discussion on how these guys work in a more side by side comparison than probably anyone else has done.  That is why I would be running seemingly unimportant test.

It's like a nozzle check, you never print such a thing but you use it to make sure you are getting the best image you can get and aren't short changing a customer or are running handicapped.

[Dottonedan]

I just can't wrap my head around spending $20k today to save $3 a shirt tomorrow.

For someone that doesn't have a CTS yet I'd think that $20k would serve them better by buying one of those or something.

One way to think of it is, would you buy an embroidery machine for $20,000 if it only made you $3 per garment?

20,000 cost at a savings of 3.00 per?
I think that is about 128 Dtg shirts per week.  Can you sell that many?  Many shops could if in the right market. Low quantity orders in full color. I could have done that many myself with being a retail store front that was open for one year. I can see justifying that easily. For the record, that's coming from a current M&R employee. Step over a dollar to save a dime. If you got the $ it's worth it. If not, then another option is good also. We all buy what we are capable of.

[Gilligan]

Well, he's saying that he should be seeing larger savings so that makes it make more sense.

My theory is you have to look at if it was a machine that you bought that would make you $3/shirt would you buy it?

Obviously, the math works for many shops... so time will tell.  I'd still like to see the settings tweaked to get the prints closer to 1:1 so we can compare more apples to apples when it comes to ink cost.  As said, if the prints aren't coming out the same then you might as well be comparing two different designs entirely.

[GraphicDisorder]

I've always said they were equally wrong vs the original artwork.  No winner, both have a flaw that I am "perceiving".

I'm only saying that M&R might be erring on the side of less ink.  Maybe this is why those prints differ... Brother is more in the market of selling ink as we all know, so maybe they want you to use up ink.  More ink = "better print" and also more money in their pocket.  That's a win win for them since no one is doing what you are doing typically.

The big square of white is essentially like printing the half tone test on film and then having it tested with a densometer to make sure you are getting 50% dots where you are supposed to and such.  This would mean that you are sure that when it is laying down a solid block of white ink or yellow ink or whatever, it would be a way to dial up or back the ink to make sure you are laying down the right amount vs too much or too little.  One is important to the client and one is important to your bottom line.

This entire thread is poised to be a great academic discussion on how these guys work in a more side by side comparison than probably anyone else has done.  That is why I would be running seemingly unimportant test.

It's like a nozzle check, you never print such a thing but you use it to make sure you are getting the best image you can get and aren't short changing a customer or are running handicapped.

I personally think you are just attempting to be argumentative to a degree and you may just derail this thread by you are going off on tangents about $4 per print difference not mattering.  It makes me go cross eyed on a retail item of 15-20$ price tag $4 pre print not mattering. 

I haven't seen a single print off the brother that I would say was over all better than the M&R.  I've seen the brother have better detail in Grey.  It's also yet to produce a more vibrant print in colors. No it's not night and day different and both are producing excellent prints mostly and they are very close in quality.  In fact I've posted the most extreme example of differences in print with the legends shirt.  No other prints off either have been near that drastic a difference so keep talking about more ink or less ink all you like but it really only shown up drastic visually in that one print. Seems like you may be assuming a cc is a cc, so more ink must mean better.  Inks are totally different and I bet they laundries different on each, so maybe that's how one is using less.  I'm no expert, I have 20/20 vision.

Again go back and look at cc comparison I posted the cmyk use wasn't night and day between the 2 so you keep saying more ink.  I am only seeing drastically more white being used on the brother so at some point maybe you should acknowledge that and not exaggerate like you trying to turn $4 into $3 a couple posts back.  I'm all for making this a helpful thread and thus far I've only seen one thread to even this detail on dtg ink costs/examples off competing machines / etc in my searching and I'm only just getting started if this can be informative and not argumentative.  Even that thread was comparing 2 machines of the same brand just different models and it was on the tshirt forums so a lot of randomness derailing it.  Let's not turn this into that. 

Once again I was/am rooting for the brother...  Remember I bought it already, it's mine paid in full I own it.....  Egg on my face if I end up buying the M&R also.....

[bulldog]

How has the hand been on the prints?

Have you done any washes yet or waiting to get it dialed in more?

[Gilligan]

Well, you would be wrong.  I have no desire to be argumenative, only to see the numbers compared as close to 1:1 as can be... that way everyone benefits by seeing which is best for them.

Even if it is "only $3" then for a shop that is only putting out 50 shirts a week it might not make as much sense.  You can do better math if you have better knowledge.

I "turned $4 into $3" because I was talking about an AVERAGE print.... average for the average person, not average for your shop.  As you know, you have to do what is best for YOUR shop.  Same for anyone. So seeing numbers based on larger prints when another shop might not do that large of a print typically isn't working for them.

We send out for DTG and we had a descent sized order that wanted to explore DTG options and they asked for 9x9 and 12x12 quotes.  Nothing larger.

I understand that isn't your clientele and that's super awesome that you get to print larger stuff... we push for cooler stuff all the time.  Not everyone is down to push boundaries sadly.

I want an academic DISCUSSION on all the numbers here, I'd rather not see a single argument on here.

[GraphicDisorder]

Well, he's saying that he should be seeing larger savings so that makes it make more sense.

My theory is you have to look at if it was a machine that you bought that would make you $3/shirt would you buy it?

Obviously, the math works for many shops... so time will tell.  I'd still like to see the settings tweaked to get the prints closer to 1:1 so we can compare more apples to apples when it comes to ink cost.  As said, if the prints aren't coming out the same then you might as well be comparing two different designs entirely.

Almost every print done so far with same art the prints are very similar in appearance, you've continued to miss/ ignore me saying that.  You continue to dwell on the extreme example that I intentionally posted to highlight the differences in them in that specific case, how you assumed that applies to all is a stretch even for you.  Why you keep saying $3 diff when it was over $4 is interesting, your attempting to minimize it for some reason...hmmm.  You also say $3 shirt difference when it's actually $4 per print not per shirt that's a big difference as well.  In my shop probably less than 10% of our prints are single sided....  So over 2 print locations that brother could add $6-8 in ink from what I am seeing and that's assuming 13 inch prints,  we will be running more like 14-15 inch wide prints.  So it's not likely to get better...

 

[GraphicDisorder]

How has the hand been on the prints?

Have you done any washes yet or waiting to get it dialed in more?

Washed prints from both machines.  Initially we saw some fiber issues from both machines.  That's gone now. Hand after one wash is a bit worse than screen print but many of these shirts are fully covered 13x15/16 area so there is a fair amount of ink.  We have printed some things with nearly no hand.  When we design specifically for dtg going forward we will be able to play more with it and get some better hand.

[GraphicDisorder]

Well, you would be wrong.  I have no desire to be argumenative, only to see the numbers compared as close to 1:1 as can be... that way everyone benefits by seeing which is best for them.

Even if it is "only $3" then for a shop that is only putting out 50 shirts a week it might not make as much sense.  You can do better math if you have better knowledge.

I "turned $4 into $3" because I was talking about an AVERAGE print.... average for the average person, not average for your shop.  As you know, you have to do what is best for YOUR shop.  Same for anyone. So seeing numbers based on larger prints when another shop might not do that large of a print typically isn't working for them.

We send out for DTG and we had a descent sized order that wanted to explore DTG options and they asked for 9x9 and 12x12 quotes.  Nothing larger.

I understand that isn't your clientele and that's super awesome that you get to print larger stuff... we push for cooler stuff all the time.  Not everyone is down to push boundaries sadly.

I want an academic DISCUSSION on all the numbers here, I'd rather not see a single argument on here.

I guess I disagree on this end it seems your argumentative.

Average?  I think honestly the average will be worse than $3 in my shop.  That kindigit print for example was 6-7 bucks, it was around $1.50 on the M&R.  Maybe I'll reprint that one on both again next week as it printed very similar looking and drastic ink usage difference.  I doubt many would buy DTG with the hopes of only 50 shirts a week, people are smart they can do basic math. I'm going to give my usage numbers now and as I go as long as this thread gets back on track and if they print smaller they can estimate it. Beside you should always base estimate on the high side so your not surprised.  If they can build a business off my 14/15 inch wide print costs they will be swimming it in at 12 inches wide won't they.  BTW Brother tech said he has a client doing 500 prints a shift off same machine I have. They are work horses.

I find both machines great so far.  Different but great. 

Food for thought as well.  Waste tank on that brother has wasted a bunch more ink as well than the M&R so that could be more good info.  If one is wasting more ink as well... That's money going in the drain.