XBMT - Mash temp

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

iijakii

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
6,083
Reaction score
1,868
Location
Portland-ish, OR
http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/

Have you guys seen this yet? Incredibly interesting. I've long suspected similar things and that yeast is the main importance for FG. I've mashed similar grain bills with ~6+ F differences (by mistake, fiddling with stuck mashes or pump issues etc) and never saw a difference in gravities. Brulosopher mashes two identical beers at 147 and 161, and does see a significant FG variance. BUT -- you can't taste the difference. Wat?

Now I'm wondering what the hell really matters for perceptions of sweet and dry. I know I've had ~1.010 IPAs that weren't very dry too.
 
Interesting. I wonder if the low abv is a factor for perceived mouth feel, meaning you can't recognize it until the abv is higher. At least the variance in abv is what we expected. I'd hate to see too many myths busted at once.
 
I enjoy reading the xbmnts, but have any shown significant differences between two beers? It seems weird that so many of the tests show no significant difference between two methods.
 
I enjoy reading the xbmnts, but have any shown significant differences between two beers. It seems weird that so many of the tests show no significant difference between two methods.

I think it shows just how variable everyone's taste buds are...

Which is partially his point. Because our taste buds differ so much, many of our techniques don't matter that much as a whole (especially when we so often do things blindy based on stuff we've read).
 
I enjoy reading the xbmnts, but have any shown significant differences between two beers. It seems weird that so many of the tests show no significant difference between two methods.

There have been some that have achieved statistical differences, but not many. He even changed his method recently to basically allow the chances of reaching statistical significance to become easier, and it only changed the results of like 2 or 3 previous xbmts. And I remember that only one of them had significant meaning to me.

I think something that's often talked about when referring to their (there's more than one contributor now) exbeeriments, is that they have very sound brewing processes and techniques, and then they are changing one variable. And that doesn't make a perceptible difference. But change up multiple variables, and you're likely to end up with ****ty beer, or below average at best.

As far as this particular xbmt goes, I think it can be more chalked up to a couple of things:
1) A misunderstanding by the average homebrewer about long-chain sugars vs. simple ones. When we hear "sugars" we automatically think sweet, but the long-chain sugars created at higher mash temps are not actually very sweet compared to the simple sugars. So it should never be expected to make a sweeter beer at higher mash temps.
2) As stated, this is a low-abv beer, and I would be willing to bet that at a higher abv, the body/mouthfeel of all those leftover complex sugars would be a little more noticeable. But who knows, I could be wrong.
 
This one really has me puzzled. I find it hard to believe that I couldn't taste a 9 point difference in finishing gravity. That seems crazy.

I too would like to see what would happen if he combined three or more of the insignificant techniques.

And at this point, im not convince the tasters could ID a triangle between DuPont and Budweiser.

JK brulosopher, keep up the good work.
 
This one really has me puzzled. I find it hard to believe that I couldn't taste a 9 point difference in finishing gravity. That seems crazy.

I too would like to see what would happen if he combined three or more of the insignificant techniques.

And at this point, im not convince the tasters could ID a triangle between DuPont and Budweiser.

JK brulosopher, keep up the good work.

Honestly, I have no idea if I should trust the standard panel(s) of Brulosophy's tasters. Most of them might not be BJCP, might only be Apprentice or Recognized rank. I don't know if there's any possibility of group-think, group discussions before filling out data sheets/surveys... don't know. It just boggles the mind that out of X number of experiments (a couple dozen??), the tasters can barely ever find any significant taste differences. I find THAT to be statistically very very unlikely in itself!!!
 
Honestly, I have no idea if I should trust the standard panel(s) of Brulosophy's tasters. Most of them might not be BJCP, might only be Apprentice or Recognized rank. I don't know if there's any possibility of group-think, group discussions before filling out data sheets/surveys... don't know. It just boggles the mind that out of X number of experiments (a couple dozen??), the tasters can barely ever find any significant taste differences. I find THAT to be statistically very very unlikely in itself!!!


What percentage of the average home brewers/craft beer drinkers do you think are bjcp certified? I would bet a lower percentage than brulosophy exbeeriments. Which is why he doesn't limit to just the professional judges. He wants to know if it's gonna mess with the perception for the average guy. BUT he is also always served a quasi-blind triangle and often can't distinguish the difference either... And this is the guy who has tasted the two throughout the process.
 
What percentage of the average home brewers/craft beer drinkers do you think are bjcp certified? I would bet a lower percentage than brulosophy exbeeriments. Which is why he doesn't limit to just the professional judges. He wants to know if it's gonna mess with the perception for the average guy. BUT he is also always served a quasi-blind triangle and often can't distinguish the difference either... And this is the guy who has tasted the two throughout the process.

Personally I don't care about the average guy. If I were to run exBEERiments on this scale (which I probably never will), personally I would try to gather BJCP folks exclusively. I would want trained palates only. I understand his stance, and mine just differs. Plus there's a bit of jealousy going on, that he's the cool kid and I'm not. Plus there's the general distrust of anyone's taste buds that aren't mine. These are problems that I have that shouldn't affect others but sometimes do.

But I really do just have a problem with not knowing what schmucks are involved with these taste experiments. BJCP certs would offer higher credibility in my book. Not perfect credibility, but a little bit more than what we've got now.

But I totally digress -- sorry.
 
General comment, not specific to this, since they didn't use BIAB:

If you BIAB, and use a very tight crush, you will get very fast conversion, and the mash temperature will be less important.
You may get a lower FG than you expect, even with a high mash temperature.


I'm not a big drinker, but when I brew, I mash low, so as to make a 7% IPA. None of this girlie man 4.5% session IPAs for me :p :fro:
 
Personally I don't care about the average guy. If I were to run exBEERiments on this scale (which I probably never will), personally I would try to gather BJCP folks exclusively. I would want trained palates only. I understand his stance, and mine just differs. Plus there's a bit of jealousy going on, that he's the cool kid and I'm not. Plus there's the general distrust of anyone's taste buds that aren't mine. These are problems that I have that shouldn't affect others but sometimes do.



But I really do just have a problem with not knowing what schmucks are involved with these taste experiments. BJCP certs would offer higher credibility in my book. Not perfect credibility, but a little bit more than what we've got now.



But I totally digress -- sorry.


My automatic response is: give me a break! Nobody's palate is perfect, not mine, not yours, not bjcp certified judges.

Would you say that fermentation temps for a lager would make a big difference in the final product? I mean maybe the average schmuck won't be able to sell a difference, but surely bjcp certified judges would be able to tell all of the flaws that came from fermenting a lager too warm right? Right?

Wrong...

http://brulosophy.com/2015/06/22/fermentation-temperature-pt-3-lager-yeast-exbeeriment-results/
 
Nobody's palate is perfect, not mine, not yours, not bjcp certified judges.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Would you say that fermentation temps for a lager would make a big difference in the final product? I mean maybe the average schmuck won't be able to sell a difference, but surely bjcp certified judges would be able to tell all of the flaws that came from fermenting a lager too warm right? Right?

Wrong...

Objection! He's leading the witness!

I'm actually not sure on lager yeast temperatures. I do challenge the common thought that lagers all NEED to be fermented cold to avoid esters -- without much data here and now in the 21st century, it's hard to know if this is really true. However I personally also have not run experiments to try to see what the differences might be. I do respect this one of Brulosophy's exBEERiments for a well run one that really challenges dogma.
 
It's rather amazing, but I'm more interested in the "average guy" than a BJCP Judge any day. I do hobbies for fun and try to (unsuccessfully) avoid obsessions. But there they are in every hobby...

Marshall is doing pretty cool research and he's quietly getting banned at many places on the internet for doing it. Either go with his data or not, but it's really disingenuous to trash him for doing it.

This one is really simple to verify, actually.. you don't even have to brew. Back sweeten a beer with lactose or another non fermentable sugar (or drink quickly) and bring it up 9 points. You can do this with all sort of different beers, even commercial...

Fred
 
No need to "trash" Marshall. That's really not the intent of my previous comments. Overall he and his cohorts are doing great work, and fighting dogma, which is really awesome! Fortunately, he is also open to constructive criticism, just as any well respected dude should be. Is he perfect? No. Am I perfect? No. Am I an ass? You be the judge -- I can handle it!

:fro:

Back to the topic at hand..... I have brewed and tasted beers mashed high that had little body, and mashed low that had plenty of body. Part of this may be mash temp specific, part is certainly yeast specific. There's just too damn many variables. A ton more experiments would be needed to try to figure out the real patterns here. One data point, one exBEERiment, is just that -- one data point. Any one data point MUST be accepted with grains of salt. That's a fact.
 
4.4% and 3.4% are very low in the ABV range. Lets say that body and sweetness differences are still imperceptible in higher gravity brews, but then maybe you get a difference at higher ABVs just because the alcohol presence? Will one taste more boozy than the other?

I think we need another xBmt.
 
I'm interested as well on if it's noticeable in bigger bodied beers. Still doesn't mean this one isn't amazing.

Brewing a blonde? Just throw some **** in hot water, it'll probably come out just perfect. :goat:
 
I love his experiments, but I'd like to see them scaled up and see what a larger sample size might do for the numbers.

His methods are evolving and getting better, but I haven't seen anyone, even the "haters" trying to do it any better. I see a lot of, "I've heard that x does this or that" and it's taken as gospel. What's wrong with trying to find a better answer than anecdotal evidence?

It's just hard to do when so many people have differing tastes, and a lot of homebrewers don't know how to taste beer in a critical way. (not that they should). It makes finding small differences very difficult.
 
If it were up for a vote I'd prefer the best judges possible. For me, learning how to perfect a brew requires the best critic you can find. If I were to enter a contest I'd want the most critical feedback to perfect my brew. The entire reason I find an experiment like this interesting is for the purpose of perfecting a recipe or technique. Do my friends require I try to make a perfect beer? Heck no. But it is part of the fun of the hobby.
 
Statistical significance should be the same regardless of being a BJCP judge or an average joe. Before they were judges, they were average joes with our same palates in terms of statistics. They have a better vocabulary and understanding how to mentally cut up what they are tasting and describe it if its within style or not within style.

If they only had BJCP masters judging the triangle test that wouldn't really mean anything in terms of statistics since they would be testing only a tiny subset of a tiny population(all those who are BJCP certified in general) who are considered experts in the field of tasting beer.

Would I, if brewing a beer specifically for entering into a competition still brew it according to general practice? For example if I was entering a light bodied low gravity beer. Would I still mash low in the 145F range? Yes, of course I would. Competitions are won by very minor differences in some cases. Simply because its not like mashing lower is more difficult or time consuming than mashing high.
 
Would I, if brewing a beer specifically for entering into a competition still brew it according to general practice? For example if I was entering a light bodied low gravity beer. Would I still mash low in the 145F range? Yes, of course I would. Competitions are won by very minor differences in some cases. Simply because its not like mashing lower is more difficult or time consuming than mashing high.

Sure on this one there's not really any savings besides RDWHAHB. There's common critiques of 2* F mash temps. This shows that might not really matter at all.

If youre looking for an easier one, there's the short-boil pilsner malt. I know he has some other good ones I cant recall right now.
 
I think it shows just how variable everyone's taste buds are...

Which is partially his point. Because our taste buds differ so much, many of our techniques don't matter that much as a whole (especially when we so often do things blindy based on stuff we've read).

Yeah, I get that. At this point, I'd kind of like to see a test of two different ale yeasts against each other (such as wlp 001 and 002), or even a test of a lager yeast vs. an ale yeast. I'm not 100% sure that the tasters will be able to distinguish them.
 
Sure on this one there's not really any savings besides RDWHAHB. There's common critiques of 2* F mash temps. This shows that might not really matter at all.

If youre looking for an easier one, there's the short-boil pilsner malt. I know he has some other good ones I cant recall right now.

Oh yeah, definitely. I wasnt trying to discount the findings in the experiment. So far everything I've read of his matches with my own personal experiences tasting beers, most of the accepted mantras spoken by us are suggestions rather than absolutes in modern home brewing volumes/amounts. (other than sanitation, and getting chlorine out of your water before brewing)

I was more trying to point out that exbeeriments arent to brew competition beers but to try to suss out individual variables and see if they actually play a huge roll, individually. The thread seemed to quickly devolve into "oh, only BJCP judges should be tasting this and telling us if it makes a difference or not". BJCP judges arent the be all, end all judges of good beer. If you run a brewery and all the BJCP master judges love your beer, but the general populace doesn't, you'll still go out of business.

Hell, I still do single/double decoction mashes regardless of the exbeeriment results showing melanoidin malt can give the same results.
 
1. I would most certainly prefer BJCP opinions to that of the average Joe. The average untrained tester may not pick up the subtle differences.

2. For this experiment there may be a threshold below which it's hard to distinguish. So a 4.4 vs a 3.4 might be too low to discern. But 6.6 vs 5.1 may be detectable.

3. Might a higher hooped beer make it harder to tell the 2 samples apart?

It's still a good experiment and I'd have thought the results would be more noticeable. The higher alcohol beer is thinner, yet people had trouble discerning the difference.
 
There have been some that have achieved statistical differences, but not many. He even changed his method recently to basically allow the chances of reaching statistical significance to become easier, and it only changed the results of like 2 or 3 previous xbmts. And I remember that only one of them had significant meaning to me.



I think something that's often talked about when referring to their (there's more than one contributor now) exbeeriments, is that they have very sound brewing processes and techniques, and then they are changing one variable. And that doesn't make a perceptible difference..


I haven't read all their stuff but from the ones I did read there was no way you could claim a "statistical" difference because they failed to meet the most basic requirement of a statistical study which is a sample size of 30 or greater.

If you don't have an adequate sample size you are not performing a statistically sound study, rather, an Xberriment - much different.
 
1. I would most certainly prefer BJCP opinions to that of the average Joe. The average untrained tester may not pick up the subtle differences.

2. For this experiment there may be a threshold below which it's hard to distinguish. So a 4.4 vs a 3.4 might be too low to discern. But 6.6 vs 5.1 may be detectable.

3. Might a higher hooped beer make it harder to tell the 2 samples apart?

It's still a good experiment and I'd have thought the results would be more noticeable. The higher alcohol beer is thinner, yet people had trouble discerning the difference.

That may be true for 2 and 3, there would probably be a lot of people that could tell the difference between a 6.6% abv and a 5.1% abv beer. Maybe theyd be able to tell with a highly hopped beer as well, if there were other problems with it.

But any study on the effects of expectation on perception suggests the exact opposite. They do the triangle test and do not tell anyone if there is actually a beer thats different in the three samples. They have to tell by perception alone if theres a different beer in the mix. If they were served 3 samples of the same beer, and told theres 1 sample that had something different done to it, you would find a lot more people picking one of the beers as being different.

Same situation, but serve 3 different beers in the 3 samples, but tell everyone theyre the same. You will find that a lot of people suddenly won't find any difference, or at the very least will have a very hard time determining if there are actually all the same or not.

BJCP judges do not taste the beers blindly. They don't taste 3 different samples of beer at once and try to tell if they are all the same or all different. They taste 1 beer. OK this beer falls within the style guidelines, or no, this beer does not fall within style guidelines.

You could put an award winning gold medal Russian Imperial Stout into a competition under the Light Lager category, at which point, that would be a terrible tasting light lager, its all roasty and super high alcohol with a lot of hop bitterness, terrible example of a light lager. As a RIS though its a fantastic tasting beer. BJCP certification is not the sole arbiter of what is, and is not "good beer".

I haven't read all their stuff but from the ones I did read there was no way you could claim a "statistical" difference because they failed to meet the most basic requirement of a statistical study which is a sample size of 30 or greater.

If you don't have an adequate sample size you are not performing a statistically sound study, rather, an Xberriment - much different.

They do state this that, their data gathering is never 100% perfect and it may not represent true statistical significance. BUT and its a big but, thats largely due to the difficulty of gathering large sample, organizing its properly, and serving those triangle tests all in a similar time frame. I am sure there are a lot of people that go into trying these triangle tests knowing the Brulosophy website and expect already theyll be served a triangle test where 1 beer will be different than the other two. This automatically removes the testing from being a blind test.

If it was a true 100% blind test I'd bet we would see a drop in the number that select the odd beer out. We like to think ourselves able to tell the difference and I'll bet theres been a handful of BJCP judges that thought the same thing "oh I'll definitely be able to pick the odd beer out" and couldn't when they actually sat down to do it.
 
We like to think ourselves able to tell the difference and I'll bet theres been a handful of BJCP judges that thought the same thing "oh I'll definitely be able to pick the odd beer out" and couldn't when they actually sat down to do it.

I'm BJCP recognized and have participated in two of Brulosphy's Xbmt's and wasn't able to pick the odd beer out....

If any of you haven't participated in a triangle test with beer, I'd definitely encourage it....
 
I think it shows just how variable everyone's taste buds are...



Which is partially his point. Because our taste buds differ so much, many of our techniques don't matter that much as a whole (especially when we so often do things blindy based on stuff we've read).

Yeah...

There have been some that have achieved statistical differences, but not many. He even changed his method recently to basically allow the chances of reaching statistical significance to become easier, and it only changed the results of like 2 or 3 previous xbmts. And I remember that only one of them had significant meaning to me.



I think something that's often talked about when referring to their (there's more than one contributor now) exbeeriments, is that they have very sound brewing processes and techniques, and then they are changing one variable. And that doesn't make a perceptible difference. But change up multiple variables, and you're likely to end up with ****ty beer, or below average at best.



As far as this particular xbmt goes, I think it can be more chalked up to a couple of things:

1) A misunderstanding by the average homebrewer about long-chain sugars vs. simple ones. When we hear "sugars" we automatically think sweet, but the long-chain sugars created at higher mash temps are not actually very sweet compared to the simple sugars. So it should never be expected to make a sweeter beer at higher mash temps.

2) As stated, this is a low-abv beer, and I would be willing to bet that at a higher abv, the body/mouthfeel of all those leftover complex sugars would be a little more noticeable. But who knows, I could be wrong.

Combined variable xBmts are coming, I promise, just gotta get all the (important) single variables out of the way first!

This one really has me puzzled. I find it hard to believe that I couldn't taste a 9 point difference in finishing gravity. That seems crazy.

I too would like to see what would happen if he combined three or more of the insignificant techniques.

And at this point, im not convince the tasters could ID a triangle between DuPont and Budweiser.

JK brulosopher, keep up the good work.

[emoji8]

Honestly, I have no idea if I should trust the standard panel(s) of Brulosophy's tasters. Most of them might not be BJCP, might only be Apprentice or Recognized rank. I don't know if there's any possibility of group-think, group discussions before filling out data sheets/surveys... don't know. It just boggles the mind that out of X number of experiments (a couple dozen??), the tasters can barely ever find any significant taste differences. I find THAT to be statistically very very unlikely in itself!!!

I love you, baby, you know that... but the "sh!tty tasters" argument is pretty banal. Remember, a judge doesn't taste better, he simply knows how to write about what he's tasting better... supposedly.

General comment, not specific to this, since they didn't use BIAB:

If you BIAB, and use a very tight crush, you will get very fast conversion, and the mash temperature will be less important.
You may get a lower FG than you expect, even with a high mash temperature.


I'm not a big drinker, but when I brew, I mash low, so as to make a 7% IPA. None of this girlie man 4.5% session IPAs for me :p :fro:

I do use BIAB... in a MLT :)

No need to "trash" Marshall. That's really not the intent of my previous comments. Overall he and his cohorts are doing great work, and fighting dogma, which is really awesome! Fortunately, he is also open to constructive criticism, just as any well respected dude should be. Is he perfect? No. Am I perfect? No. Am I an ass? You be the judge -- I can handle it!



:fro:



Back to the topic at hand..... I have brewed and tasted beers mashed high that had little body, and mashed low that had plenty of body. Part of this may be mash temp specific, part is certainly yeast specific. There's just too damn many variables. A ton more experiments would be needed to try to figure out the real patterns here. One data point, one exBEERiment, is just that -- one data point. Any one data point MUST be accepted with grains of salt. That's a fact.

Cheers.

4.4% and 3.4% are very low in the ABV range. Lets say that body and sweetness differences are still imperceptible in higher gravity brews, but then maybe you get a difference at higher ABVs just because the alcohol presence? Will one taste more boozy than the other?

I think we need another xBmt.

Agreed. Coming.

If it were up for a vote I'd prefer the best judges possible. For me, learning how to perfect a brew requires the best critic you can find. If I were to enter a contest I'd want the most critical feedback to perfect my brew. The entire reason I find an experiment like this interesting is for the purpose of perfecting a recipe or technique. Do my friends require I try to make a perfect beer? Heck no. But it is part of the fun of the hobby.

Please define for me "best judges possible," because in my book, they only know how to blowhard about beer a little better than the average Joe (I'm a judge).

Yeah, I get that. At this point, I'd kind of like to see a test of two different ale yeasts against each other (such as wlp 001 and 002), or even a test of a lager yeast vs. an ale yeast. I'm not 100% sure that the tasters will be able to distinguish them.

It is coming, amigo!

1. I would most certainly prefer BJCP opinions to that of the average Joe. The average untrained tester may not pick up the subtle differences.

2. For this experiment there may be a threshold below which it's hard to distinguish. So a 4.4 vs a 3.4 might be too low to discern. But 6.6 vs 5.1 may be detectable.

3. Might a higher hooped beer make it harder to tell the 2 samples apart?

It's still a good experiment and I'd have thought the results would be more noticeable. The higher alcohol beer is thinner, yet people had trouble discerning the difference.

1. Don't agree at all... judges don't have better tastebuds, they write better... sometimes.

2. Potentially!

3. Potentially!

Cheers, buddy :)

I haven't read all their stuff but from the ones I did read there was no way you could claim a "statistical" difference because they failed to meet the most basic requirement of a statistical study which is a sample size of 30 or greater.

If you don't have an adequate sample size you are not performing a statistically sound study, rather, an Xberriment - much different.

What?! I've been doing res arch for 20ish years and nice never heard of this standard. Also, of the xBmts including that many participants, none have reached significance.

I'm BJCP recognized and have participated in two of Brulosphy's Xbmt's and wasn't able to pick the odd beer out....



If any of you haven't participated in a triangle test with beer, I'd definitely encourage it....

Amen.
 
I love you, baby, you know that... but the "sh!tty tasters" argument is pretty banal. Remember, a judge doesn't taste better, he simply knows how to write about what he's tasting better... supposedly.

Ya know, I disagree with this one.

Even though I've gone through the process to be BCJP recognized, I will be the first to admit that my nose and pallet aren't very good (deviated septum? too much tobacco as a teen? who knows).

My wife has a much better pallet and sense of smell than I do, and she's part of the reason why I've become a better brewer. I can ask her what she's smelling/tasting in my beers, and if it's getting where I want it to be.

Now, I'm sure I fill out a better score sheet than she does -- but, I'll bet $5 that if she did a triangle test with Marshall's xBMT's, she'd do much better than I would.

But again, that's part of the point with the xBMT's....

I'd love to see one where the results were 28 out of 28 identified the different beer. But, alas, this is tasting we're talking about. Much different than other senses...

Love you're work, Brulospher, and hope to be able to drink beer with you again someday! :mug:
 
Ya know, I disagree with this one.



Even though I've gone through the process to be BCJP recognized, I will be the first to admit that my nose and pallet aren't very good (deviated septum? too much tobacco as a teen? who knows).



My wife has a much better pallet and sense of smell than I do, and she's part of the reason why I've become a better brewer. I can ask her what she's smelling/tasting in my beers, and if it's getting where I want it to be.



Now, I'm sure I fill out a better score sheet than she does -- but, I'll bet $5 that if she did a triangle test with Marshall's xBMT's, she'd do much better than I would.



But again, that's part of the point with the xBMT's....



I'd love to see one where the results were 28 out of 28 identified the different beer. But, alas, this is tasting we're talking about. Much different than other senses...



Love you're work, Brulospher, and hope to be able to drink beer with you again someday! :mug:


It sounds like you agree!
 
Ya know, I disagree with this one.

Even though I've gone through the process to be BCJP recognized, I will be the first to admit that my nose and pallet aren't very good (deviated septum? too much tobacco as a teen? who knows).

My wife has a much better pallet and sense of smell than I do, and she's part of the reason why I've become a better brewer. I can ask her what she's smelling/tasting in my beers, and if it's getting where I want it to be.

Now, I'm sure I fill out a better score sheet than she does -- but, I'll bet $5 that if she did a triangle test with Marshall's xBMT's, she'd do much better than I would.

But again, that's part of the point with the xBMT's....

I'd love to see one where the results were 28 out of 28 identified the different beer. But, alas, this is tasting we're talking about. Much different than other senses...

Love you're work, Brulospher, and hope to be able to drink beer with you again someday! :mug:

This basically describes my wife to be. She doesn't have the same vocabulary so when she describes wet garbage that means shes detecting sulfur (as an example, I haven't made a wet garbage beer in a long time), and she doesn't like IPAs at all in any form so I have a hard time getting tasting notes from her on those. But she can definitely detect when I exclude any crystal malt from a stout recipe, or when I include it she detects the fruity caramels.


I would be interested in seeing what the 1 variable that we chant about that ends up being the one thing that would cause a nearly 100% selection of the odd beer out. That is of course ignoring a variable like sanitation, or chlorine in the water, thought it would still be interesting to see, two beers brewed with city tap water that has known chlorine/chloramine content, one of them had campden tablets added to garunteed remove the chlorine and chloramine (the sanitation test I think you could get lucky a couple times and not have fart-beer, but over tiem you'd be doomed).
 
Back
Top