Northeast Pales/IPA/DIPA

QUESTION: Much is made about sulfate and chloride ratios and concentrations for this style of beer. As a fairly new brewer who does BIAB, and therefore treats a much larger volume of mash water, should I be calculating my sulfide and chloride concentrations for the mash or for the end-of-boil volume? I build up from RO water, so in theory I have the last word, but I don't know what that word should be. And between the start of the mash and the end of the boil, there's often a difference of 2 gallons water, which I assume greatly increases the ppm for my minerals.

 

its not the beers cloudiness that makes it tastes like it does. its the way to make the beer taste like it does that makes i cloudy. hop oils are a big part of what makes the beer taste like it does and therefore, contribute to the cloudiness as well

 

Its not as much about the ratios of chloride to sulfate, its more just pure amounts. you could have 120ppm chlroide and 60 ppm sulfate (2:1) and have the beer taste great. you could also have 400ppm chlroide and 200 ppm sulfate (also 2:1) and th beers taste like shit. its not a ratio - its specific amounts. I use Beer Alchemy, which calculates my water for me. you can also use Bru'n water to do the same thing.

 

Lots of "it doesn't need to be murky" to taste/feel/smell like a Tree House (or Trillium, etc.) beer. Obviously appearance in and of itself does not directly have a bearing on these things...but it's a misguided argument. This excessive murkiness is a result of a combination of processes and (most likely!) ingredients. Are we saying it's possible to mimic these processes and ingredients to a T and not get murky beer? I don't think so. It's not about looking at murkiness as a requisite in and of itself, it's about reverse engineering a clone based on this fact, and discussing the process behind it gets you closer to cloning the style.

So yes, murkiness is a requirement because murkiness indicates a replication of the process and ingredients of Tree House. The only debate that should be happening is what is causing it, because there are a lot of sources for haze/murk.

 

No one said precisely replicating the processes and ingredients of these breweries would result in a clear beer. Therefore, your argument is moot.

The fact is, a juicy hop beer with low bitterness and a crap ton of aroma doesn't need to look like a cup of gravy.

 

crap ton of aroma is subjective. I honestly have had very few, if any, clear IPA with the same aroma as the hazy IPA's

 

Hazy and gravy are very different things. One is translucent. The other is opaque. Neither are clear.

 

Those descriptors have been used as a general descriptor of this style, but only get you part of the way there. The thread relates to a specific kind of smooth/juicy/aroma bomb, the NE style pale, where the (arguable) best examples have a certain level of turbidity. Coming in the thread and pedantically pointing out that you can make something generally the same but clear is not anything worth discussing in this particular thread, at least in my opinion. The discussion isn't about how to get there part of the way, it's about getting it as close as possible. In that respect, the process behind turbidity is the opposite of a moot point.

 

Well your opinions here are wrong and your previous post is still moot. You don't get to get to determine what is "worth discussing" and you are discussing something you have deemed not worthy of discussing. Everything I've said in this thread is related to the topic.

What does turbidity provide besides turbidity that can't be accomplished without turbidity?

So far your only valid point was stating the obvious. Using the exact same process and ingredients as beer X makes beer X.

 

Even if it is possible to make a crystal clear beer that has the same mouthfeel, aroma, and taste I wouldn't do it. I think it just boils down to a matter of personal preference with these beers. In my opinion, the juice like appearance of these IPA's is part of the appeal. There's just something awesome looking about the glowing gold/orange color to these when held up to the light. If pilsner looked like this I'd be troubled, but in a juicy IPA I feel it adds to the appeal regardless if a comparable beer could be brewed clear. I get though that some people just prefer clarity or lighter haze, I guess I'm just not one of them.

 

Well until I drink a clear, or slightly hazy IPA, that has the same qualities as, say Julius, I'm of the opinion that it can't be done. It hasn't been done on a commercial scale at any rate. BrewBetty claims he/she can do it, so maybe he/she should prove us all wrong, and send some bottles to all of us naysayers. Put up or shut up.

 

It's quite rude to tell someone to "put up or shut up". Mattbk is a pro brewer and made a non-turbid beer that satisfied psnydez in this regard. It was discussed more than once in this thread.

 

Thread has run it's course... Now pedants are arguing for internet points...

 

That's exactly what the discussion is about. We can look at Trillium and Tree House, for example, and say "these beers have certain characteristics, one being turbidity." First of all, I would posit that these breweries aren't going for turbidity for the sake of it. Second, if they could achieve their desired results WITHOUT turbidity, I believe they would. Look - they developed a recipe and a process over time, and a side effect of that is turbidity. No one is saying physical appearance affects flavor/aroma, so for you to make the point is a waste of your time. But it should go without saying that process and recipe tweaks have an impact on flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, etc. So for us to look at turbidity, we can discuss how they achieve it, which gets us closer to that specific process that gets us closer to the flavor/aroma/mouthfeel characteristics of these beers.

So yeah, I think whatever processes that lead to turbid beer have an impact on the flavor.

 

Physical appearance can impact flavor and aroma. That's a commonly known fact you oddly don't believe. However, the same flavor and aroma can be achieved with a different appearance. I guess you don't believe that either. Do you even brew beer? It doesn't sound like it.

I'll agree to disagree with you and remain silent for the rest of the thread.

 

This coming from someone whose personality (at least on BA) is about as abrasive as 40 grit sandpaper. lol

 

What's beer?

Ah yes, the classic pre-emptive removal of oneself from an argument in which they've long since buried themselves. Unfortunately, it doesn't make you any less misguided. It's also silly to misconstrue my argument about vision and taste/smell having no directly physical bearing on each other, especially since it required you contradicting your own past implications about it.

Excusing for a moment your apparent desire to condescend to the moon and back, as well as the aimless fluidity with which you navigate back and forth from pedantic straw man arguments to over-generalized ones, let us at least come to the agreement that you and I don't need to continue derailing this thread.

 

no...he made a turbid beer with a yeast strain that typically would produce a clear beer if you added a lower amount of hops.

 

Oops, sorry. I was wrong about that. It happens occasionally.

I've made more than a few IPAs with 12-16oz of hops that weren't turbid, weren't fined and were very close to clear. That's more hops than TH uses for Julius.

 

I don't doubt that you have. But I bet if you did a split batch...the beer that wasn't fined would have more aroma and maybe more flavor too. Maybe brulosoohy will tackle that one.