[beersk]

That's one conclusion I'm locked in on Jesse. I've blind tasted 1.008-009 single infusion at 148f vs 1.008-009 step and without question the step beer always jumps out as more body,  higher OG or whatever you want to call it. It's feels fuller in mouthfeel without the residual sugar.

Same here.  In addition, I think foam is enhanced and has a higher sheen.  I notice this even in my uber hochkurz 15m rests.  Very interesting to read of the chemistry that might be behind it. 

Agreed. It's like saying gravity is the same in the upper atmosphere, because it's still in the Earth's atmosphere, as it is on the surface. That might be exaggerating a bit...
But I don't know, some people honestly can't taste it. The thing about those blind tests with all those people is, sure, you get a wide range of palates, but most of them probably wouldn't tell the difference if it slapped them in the face anyway. Just because you have BJCP judge by your name doesn't make you an expert. So you took a class and passed a test, cool, good for you.

[denny]

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you'll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it's a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that's just the way they've always done it.

[narvin]

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you'll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it's a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that's just the way they've always done it.

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it's worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I've talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can't taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can't, you're doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

[klickitat jim]

Well, I think the Belgian yeast covers up anything you'll be able to reliably tell, although 66 tastes could tell, which I thought was staggering.

Maybe, maybe not.  Most Belgian breweries step mash, and they think it makes a difference.

Now, the amount of crystal malt used in the recipe might mask any potential differences.  I think it's a bit of a busy grain bill for a blonde.

Or maybe that's just the way they've always done it.

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it's worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I've talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can't taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can't, you're doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

Doing it wrong, LOL.

Its true though. When I first tasted Pilsner Urquell I was familiar with pale lagers but PU had something different. That clean crackery pils malt flavor. Then the first time I tried Leffe Blond all I got was clovey phenolic,  but one day I tried the Blond next to PU and dang if I wasnt able to pick out the pils malt in the Blond. That was a step toward learning how to see past the dominant feature.

[beersk]

Yeah, I personally have no opinion of whether it's worth it.  But every Belgian brewer I've talked to thinks it does make a difference, regardless of why they do it.  It is definitely tradition, though.

But I disagree that you can't taste subtle malt complexities in a Belgian beer.  If you can't, you're doing it wrong (like many American takes on the styles).

Quite true there. This is how I feel about most American versions of German styles as well, particularly the lighter styles.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

I've been saving different steps and single infusion Pils and comparing them recently. As I said earlier, one thing that's trending is the body and foam retention  and foam density. Interesting is that single infusion 148f for 90 min and the step at 30-45 min at 144F and 45min at 158f as Compared to step of 60min st 143-144f and 60mins at 163f are thinner in mouthfeel and noticeably thinner foam and shorter foam retention time. The single infusion is FG of 1.008, the shorter step 30-45/45 is 1.012, and the 60/60 step is 1.008. The higher gravity beers actually have thinner mouthfeel then the 1.008 60/60 step....this is very interesting to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blair.streit]

I've been saving different steps and single infusion Pils and comparing them recently. As I said earlier, one thing that's trending is the body and foam retention  and foam density. Interesting is that single infusion 148f for 90 min and the step at 30-45 min at 144F and 45min at 158f as Compared to step of 60min st 143-144f and 60mins at 163f are thinner in mouthfeel and noticeably thinner foam and shorter foam retention time. The single infusion is FG of 1.008, the shorter step 30-45/45 is 1.012, and the 60/60 step is 1.008. The higher gravity beers actually have thinner mouthfeel then the 1.008 60/60 step....this is very interesting to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's really interesting. It makes me wonder if anyone has ever graphed these time/temp combos against the "commonly accepted" understanding of beta and alpha activity curves. I'm still naive enough to think that while this is really complex, you might eventually be able to map a pattern with a fixed grainbill (from the same lots) and different time/temp curves. Anyone ever seen anything like that? Am I being really stupid and overlooking 20 other things that would make this kind of data irrelevant?