wobdee
Junior Member
I'm no color spectrum expert and I'm not trying to deceive anyone. To me this beer in the picture looks pretty much same in person.
Wow.
Personally I'm way more interested in the flavors that this malt might give. Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of a 100% Red X beer against a recipe trying to simulate using a blend of say Munich, Melanoidin, and CaraMunich in reasonable proportions (like say 92/4/4)? I'd like to see tasting notes from something like that.
Your post also said you were color blind and then try to argue that it isn't that color.
As they say, it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig. I have again made the mistake of leaving the Brewing Science forum, forgetting that I am not there and expecting the readers to understand some science. My error.I'm not going to argue any further with you.
Based on the colors measured from the photograph and the properties of the malt it cannot, based on the science alone, be what the photo shows. But if it looks red (or green) to you then it is red to you.Two people in the flesh have seen the actual beer and what's in it. It is what wobdee posted.
This is why I rely on instruments when exploring color. It is why my conclusions are based on solid measurements and analysis using the established principles of color science.
Perceived color has four aspects to it:
1)The distribution of energy as a function if wavelength in the illuminant
2)The way in which the object being viewed absorbs (or reflects but clearly here we are concerned with transmitted light) at each wavelength
3)The response of the cone receptors (3 types) to the transmitted light
4)The way your brain processes the cone signals
The science is solid up through 3. You give me your beer and I'll put it in the spec and tell you what color it is (and if you want me to do that let me know and I'll tell you where to send a sample). I've done this with a lot of beers, including one made with RedX, and I can assure you, therefore, without even looking at the beer that RedX is no different in color properties than other beers. My observations are not 'colored' by the fact that I am color blind, by confirmation bias (but I still must be careful when looking at the data), by fatigue, by normal variations in color vision, by illuminant white point or any other human factor. It is because of these factors that breweries do not use visual comparison methods in determining beer color. They use the same instruments I do.
Now we get to No. 4: what you see. Some of what you see takes place in your retina but a lot of it takes place between your ears. The brain adapts so that a red rose on a white sheet of paper looks like a red rose on a white sheet of paper when illuminated by tungsten light (very yellow) or daylight in a shadow (very blue). When a camera records an image it must try to do that adaptation and when, as in the photo, there is a mixture of sources of different color and we are seeing red walls and ceiling tiles through the beer there is little surprise in that the beer in the picture looks red.
As they say, it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig. I have again made the mistake of leaving the Brewing Science forum, forgetting that I am not there and expecting the readers to understand some science. My error.
Based on the colors measured from the photograph and the properties of the malt it cannot, based on the science alone, be what the photo shows. But if it looks red (or green) to you then it is red to you.
It is important that you understand that.Here's a couple more shots of the same beer. Moving it around different light does mess with the color
Look at the photograph and at the beer at the same time. Does the photograph really look like the beer? I'm not there to see the beer but I can look at the photograph's histogram and see that the red channel is overloaded. To properly photograph this beer you should go to a uniform light source (such as the sky but get sky light behind the whole beer). Pay attention to the histogram. In this case the red is all smashed against the top rail. It is over exposed and thus, probably, clipped. Shoot in raw mode. Then turn around and shoot a gray card illuminated by the same patch of sky. Process the second shot to get neutral on the gray card and then apply the same gains to the shot of the beer. This would give a reasonably true rendering of the beer color. As I say I cannot look at the beer but it is clear that there are problems with the photo....but it's still pretty red with my eyes.
AJ, I don't think it's a blend. I'd give you a sample from my keg but I brew small 2.5 gal batches and it will probably be gone by the time you get back. I'm brewing it again this weekend, maybe I'll hook you up in Dec.Received a reply from Best Malz. I asked if Red X was a blend or not.
thank you for your friendly Email with the pleasing feedback to our BEST Red X®.
*
I would like to ask for your kind understanding that I am not allowed to reveal all the detailed secrets of this innovative craft malt. But you can be absolutely sure, that it is far more than a simple blend of 2-3 conventional malt types. We have developed this type during several months with our experts and by conducting also very intensive trials in partnership with several chummy brewers (using very different brewhouses, batch-sizes and technologies of brewing) to verify the results (of getting out excellent reddish beers with the utmost probability). ***
*
So the mentioned rumors are what they are: only rumors, maybe released by competitive maltsters in the market, who are not able to offer such products (and who may be a bit jealous about it?). **
*
So thank you for your understanding and for using our products, don´t hesitate to ask for any further information.
*
All the BEST for your further brews and
*
Best regards
BESTMALZ AG
If you do a step mash i'd do a short protien rest at 126 then a long rest at 149 to get good attenuation, this is what Best recommends.
My red-x kolsch using 48/48/4 with pilsner and rye did not quite turn out how I intended it to. It was quite tasty, but way too sweet.
What was your mash temperature and how long did you mash? Curious, as I am 12 days into a Cashmere Hopped 100% Red X Pale Ale that was rested at 126F for 25 minutes and then held at 149F for 80 minutes to bump up fermentability based on what I had read. Will be pulling off a sample to check gravity this weekend.
Will do, wobdee. We pitched it with a large, 3.5L starter of Conan/Vermont Yeast (12-13 gallon batch). I have spoken with brewers who have attenuation problems with this yeast, which I never have. The key, IMO, is a large cell count on the level of a Pro Brewer 1.0 or 1.25 (million cells/ml/degree Plato) pitch rate. I am hopeful that I can dry out this malt in a similar fashion.
Not sure what I am looking forward to more, measuring the sample or the aroma from the big Cashmere dry hop.
wow, really? I have a pale ale I brewed last Saturday, and pitched a 1.5L starter of the Yeast Bay strain "Vermont Ale" which I thought was the Conan yeast strain, and its Thursday and it has already dropped from 1.052 down to 1.012 and still going and its only been 5 days at 68° steady. I made that Pale ale really just to get the culture up enough for a DIPA im planning in another week. I will give this batch 2 solid weeks, and I think it will fall down to the 1.008-1.009 range before I cold crash.
Vermont Ale is the Conan strain, as is Omega Yeast's DIPA Ale strain (OYL-052). I have used both and have found no difference.
What was your batch size? I just punched in your numbers here (assuming a 6 gallon batch) and even without a stir plate (shake method) and a month old yeast vial, your estimated cell count is 1.4M cells/mL/degree P.
I have had the same results with this strain as you are seeing. Those that have had issues that I have spoken with have been using lower pitch rates.
6 gallon batch. I started with 1.5L of some 1.035 DME/water starter wort, and 1 vial of the yeast bay strain that was shipped to me. I had it on a stir plate from last Monday until Thursday, then cold crashed until Saturday when I pulled it back out of the fridge, decanted most of the (very clear) liquid on top, warmed it back up then pitched the slurry into my wort that was chilled using the CFC. The wort temp was 60° and the yeast slurry temp was just a tad over 65° I placed it into my ferm chamber that was set at 68 at about 3pm, and by midnight Saturday night I already had fermentation started.
Enter your email address to join: