No offence, but that descriptor is far more indicative of the fermentation side of the brewing process.
Isn't that all the more reason people shouldn't be super-upset about this machine's existence? If clean beer that matches the intended style is all about fermentation, then this machine is just a prelude to the real show.
But, if clean, nominal examples of the style DON'T speak to the ability of the machine to brew good beer, what does? It really should be about the beer. Obviously, the blind tasting of sanctioned judging has the best case to really answer the question, but, at this point, even the samples those of us have had really can speak to the quality.
1. Lack of flaws that derive from pre-fermentation process. I didn't get any, but am perfectly willing to hear from those with better palettes than mine that there are flaws I missed. I got no DMS, despite at least one of the samples I tried being mostly Pilsner malt. No diacetyl beyond what the styles allow for. No acetaldehyde, or any of the other flaws that would indicate bad mashing or boiling.
2. No beers wildly out of style for mouthfeel. If the mash schedules in the machine were screwed up in some way, we should get super-dry doppelbocks or chewy saisons. Clean, nominal examples of style indicate that the intended mash temps were hit, the enzymes kicked in as expected and conversion of the expected amounts of starches to sugars and dextrins happened.
3. Efficient extraction. Since none of the beers I tasted were way low in alcohol, we can see that the machine extracts reasonable amounts of sugars from grain. Given the example of overshooting gravity, it actually points to the machine being more efficient at extraction than at least one homebrewer who made the switch.
4. Appropriate bitterness. Nominal examples of style require beers that are not wildly under-hopped or overhopped. Given "normal" brewing makes it fairly difficult to overhop beer with standard processes, the risk of a machine (particularly one that sets the boil portion of the program below 212F/100C) underhopping is what we'd need to look for. So, beers that taste appropriately bitter (and the examples I tasted did) indicate that hop alpha acid extraction is working correctly.
Post-boil, while dismissed as not relevant in the quoted comment, these beers were fermented in a keg, so the fact they're clean, not oxidized, etc. indicates that the differing fermentation vessel doesn't cause major fermentation problems.
The only quality question I didn't have answered in my samples is how well late/aromatic hop additions work, since none of the samples I had were of the hoppy styles. But, I know that the sample recipes include a Pliny clone, so there have clearly been experiments done in that direction.
There are things we have to wait for answers (like the cleaning issues and any potential build-up of deposits, etc.) to be sure about, but "clean, nominal examples of the style" indicate that the machine makes beer as well as more "normal" homebrew gear. And, given how many samples at club night *failed* that test, clearly this machine is within the margin that actual brewing and fermentation skills vary between brewers.
Have you given any consideration to using inline filters like I posted above? Seems like it would be an easy addition but probably not necessary for every batch (especially if the filters aren't reusable.)
