Horst That was an amazing test undertaking that you have completed with very interesting results. Cheers to you for the passion you have for the "Water of Life" that we all love and bonds us together! Thank you my friend.
Awesome study! I think it's amazing that people say they prefer non chill filtered, but clearly by your experiment, normal whisky drinkers can't even distinguish between chill filtered and non chill filtered! Amazing!
Just came across this video. I didn’t know this was a point of contention. I generally don’t add any water to my whisky, so that’s probably why I wasn’t aware of this. It’s always challenging to quantify subjective data, but based on your explanation of your test method, the data speaks for itself. Very interesting. I’m sure many people will disagree, but you at least have some data. Thank you Horst!
Thank you for your hard work Dr Luening. Very cool to see this kinda study, as an aspiring scientist I for one, would advocate for not chill-filtering simply to remove an unnecessary process. i.e. as one of many possible sustainability measures
This is why Whisky.com has become my go to channel for whisky reviews. No snobbery, no dogma, just facts. These snobs that preach independent bottlers, hard to get whiskies non chill filtered etc. are doing themselves a disservice by missing out on so many great whiskies!
Non chill filtered has become a marketing term. It’s just that producers do not use the chill filtration method. But the whisky can be so heavily filtered in other ways. Most non filtered whisky tastes better as it is usually higher Abv, thus more concentrated. If anyone has tried Signatory Vintage non chill filtered at 40%, it tastes so watery.
For those that are more curious as to what "kieselgur" is, in the USA it's called called "Diatomaceous earth" (Celite). Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth
very nice. i've shared this link with our whisky club because there is so little objective information about this subject. just bold pronouncements, lol. thank you for the effort and care with this study!
excellent effort! appreciate your investigation. science prevails :) I have no doubt about your data and conclusion. But I will probably still prefer unchill-filtered whisky ;) Part of the enjoyment of whisky is emotional and feeling, very subjective and non-scientific. It is like saying "go do a scientific research on love and then live accordingly" -- very often real life is more than science.
What a great experiment. However, I would really like to see results from a similar experiment using a triangle tasting, to see if tasters could see the difference, and if so, which they would prefer. Obviously without telling them what to look for - just that the samples were different in some respect.
I think it would be fascinating to do a follow up experiment where the testers are told the whiskies are pairs, one non chill filtered, one chill filtered, and asked to determine which is which, so as to find out whether one can determine the difference when looking for it specifically.
Fritters87 Malt Maniacs did that and did worse at determining which whisky was chill filtered than if they just would have guessed. They also overwhelmingly preferred the chill filtered whisky to the non-chill filtered version.
Thanks for the info! I guess I must have missed that bit in the video, it's likely I was doing something else at the time, I frequently multitask with youtube. I'll have to have a look for that article, I'm currently half way through reading their one on E150a.
Fritters87 Sure thing. I'll have to look up the one you're currently reading on E150a as well. I'm trying to get more evidence based analysis of what effects chill filtration and added E150a can have on whisky. There's a lot of passion regarding these topics, but very little scientific analysis and evidence.
I can't find enough information about the study to determine how well it was designed; however what would be required is for the participants to be enthusiasts of non-chill filtered whiskies because they are are the ones making the claim that they can taste the difference. If the participants had no preference to begin with then the results would be meaningless, at least in the context of challenging the claim made by people that they prefer non-chill filtered.
Interesting and quite surprising actually. I prefer unchillfiltered whisky when buying a bottle. But I probably will be unable to tell the quality is better or not. Still my preference goes out to unchillfiltered whisky because it's more natural presented but I'm ok with chillfiltered whisky . If there is a statement on the lable. I'm more bothered if a single malt is artificial colored ! Not that I will taste it I think. But I don't like to be fooled. A natural artisan product should be presented that way. Taking away something out of it that's too bad but I can live with that . However adding artificial ingredients to make things look better is a "not done" in my opinion! Thanks for clearing things up with a decent investigation
Colouring is definitely a no-go. You can do a bit good if you adjust the colour of your whisky between different bottlings. People tended to be a bit frustrated when the whisky didn't have the same colour as the last bottle they bought. But colouring whisky just for the profit is very bad for the whole industry.
This depends on the technical equipment used. There are two main cost driving efforts. The filter mats and the energy used for the cooling machine. On the other hand you have to give the consumer a higher strength. This will compensate for parts of the costs. But with cooling, you have more dead volume in the system, which will lead to losses during cleaning for the next batch. My guess are 5 to 10 cent per bottle.
I might not be able to "taste" the difference between non-chill filtered and filtered, but I also cannot taste the different if you put a few drops of arsenic or rohypnol into my whisky....but I PREFER and would rather you do not :) We live in a world now of organic, and "all natural" and if im paying hundreds of dollars for an enjoyment drink please just give it to me as natural and real as possible.....99% of people cannot tell the difference between an organic or a normal fruit/vegetable...that doesnt mean that we should all just stop eating organics. They even did tests on canned or jarred pasta sauce and natural homeade all fresh ingredient sauce and most people cannot tell the difference...but obviously the jarred sauce has a paragraph of chemicals added to it... Gimme my whisky natural, non-chillfiltered no colouring no additives, just real, clean, pure whisky.
Amen brother. Have you heard of the SMWS (Single Malt Whisky Society)? I just tried some of their whiskies here in Vancouver. All their whiskies are un chill filtered, un-coloured, cask strength and single cask. Tried an 18 year old Laphroaig which was sublime. You can't buy an uncoloured Laphroaig anywhere. They sell whiskies as pure as possible.Only problem is that it's expensive to become a member. Also great point about organic. I only buy organic produce. I'm all about quality even if you can't taste the difference.
Goes to show that snobbery in in Scotch whisky is mostly bullshit, people are so hung up on chill filtration or colouring without actually paying attention to the quality of the actual product, reading a label is far easier.
This is something we have also realised over the last few years. Most people are very reluctant to buy whiskies that have been coloured or chill filltred. It is better to give every whisky at least a chance before judging it.
I am not certain if I can trust your honest opinion as at the end of the day you’re trying to sell your bottles… everyone not in their pockets knows chil-filtration removes a lot of the flavor. There’s nothing more beautiful that the scotch mist. Sell out
