I've been using it as such, but has this actually been confirmed? If so, why would anyone use the WLP at all?
Personally (and I have used all three), I just don't get the same results with dry yeast.
Don't forget that pitching rates have a lot to do with the outcome of the beer, including phenol and ester production. If you're pitching a large starter, be it from a liquid or a dry starter, the chances of getting unwanted phenol and ester production go down. So, if you're making a starter with your liquid yeasts and not with your dry yeasts, it could be affecting your outcome.
There was a recent article in BYO that cast doubt on this. I know that a connection between pitching rates and phenol/ester production has been accepted as fact for a long time, but their results didn't support any connection. They pitched at 1/4, 1, and 4x the recomended cell counts with insignificant differences.
FWIW I've had great results with dry yeast, but I've never really brewed the same beer with liquid and dry to compare head-to-head.
I've been using it as such, but has this actually been confirmed? If so, why would anyone use the WLP at all?
I agree when I use the dry it is a different beer. I prefer the liquid to the dry. I just think the profile is cleaner on the liquid and I can tell a difference in my beers.
Enter your email address to join: