5 ms·

I'm really looking forward to trying a product of this system. As a fan of complex whiskies (mostly Scotch) and wild, chaotic rums, I'm wondering how close it c

by beat 12y ago

I'm really looking forward to trying a product of this system. As a fan of complex whiskies (mostly Scotch) and wild, chaotic rums, I'm wondering how close it can get to the myriad of flavors and textures those aged drinks provide. Differences in barrel types are immediately obvious in whisky - try Balvenie or other distilleries that offer different barrel-aging options. I worry some, because as a musician, I'm all too familiar with the shortcomings of digital emulations of classic sounds. They can get 98%, but that last two percent is really bothersome and weak. I hope these new whiskies aren't like that!

bweitzman 12y ago
Off topic, but I'm always bothered when people say something like "It's the last 1% that counts the most". It's misleading to say that any single percentage point is more important than any other. If the last 1% is the most important, doesn't it make more sense to call it the last 99%? I suppose if you are considering only the top percentiles of whatever you're talking about, it makes more sense. If you're only looking at the 95th-100th percentiles, then 1% of total quality is actually more like a 20% change in the space you're considering. But at that the same, to arbitrarily say that only things in the top 5 percent are worth considering is, well, arbitrary. /rant
- vacri 12y ago
  Not quite the same thing, but when I see low fat "2% fat milk", it sounds to me that there should be 2% by volume of visible fat spheroids... :)
  - auxym 12y ago
    Your milk also likely is labeled "homogenized", otherwise the fatty cream would indeed separate and float on top.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Off topic, but I'm always bothered when people say something like "It's the last 1% that counts the most". It's misleading to say that any single percentage point is more important than any other. Its actually valid when its related to something like the Pareto principle, when you are talking about which percent by one measure is important in consideration of some other measure.
- beat 12y ago
  In genetics, that last 2% is the difference between a human being and a chimpanzee.
  - dzhiurgis 12y ago
    Is it really the last, or just 2% spread across the code?
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      It's not the last.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Two words: uncanny valley.
_delirium 12y ago
An interesting bit to me is that even ultra-traditional distilleries have by now accepted that color can be matched through nontraditional means, and that doesn't seem to cause much trouble. Even single-malt Scotch, otherwise quite strictly regulated, permits artificial color additive E150 (but no other additives). Admittedly color is probably comparatively easy to fake convincingly, especially in a uniform liquid setting where the color perception is not so complex. But that it's accepted even at the expensive "purist" levels does seem like already a chink in the armor of the idea that the only right way to do it is with a fully traditional method. A fully traditional method of coloring would leave it to whatever color is picked up from the mash and barrel-aging, and I could imagine someone arguing that only in that way do the aromas/flavors/colors subtly "match" properly. But it seems not to be seen as an issue.
- ars 12y ago
  E150 is caramel color. As a side note, do Europeans memorize what each E number is?
  - waqf 12y ago
    Probably just as many as Americans who memorize what Red #40 is.
    - ars 12y ago
      Americans don't have to memorize it, they see Red and know it's a color.
  - matt4077 12y ago
    I know E150 but nothing else. Plus yellow #5. Thanks to eminem.
  - sgift 12y ago
    Nope, but E150 is pretty well known because it is ... everywhere. But we do know that if whatever you buy has to many E numbers on its label its probably something you do not want to eat (That's a rule of thumb: Everything, even water, has a E number, but companies usually only put them on the labels for the not-so-nice stuff)
mutagen 12y ago
I'm looking forward to the flavor experimentations that will result from this. Shortening the feedback loop, providing additional 'knobs' to turn, and reducing costs of trying new techniques will hopefully result in some amazing new tasty beverages.
erichurkman 12y ago
If they get 98% of the flavor profile right and bring costs down substantially, they'd open up their products to a ton of people who can't currently afford to drink "40 year Scotch" but still want to try it/enjoy it. That's huge. It won't kill the craft whiskey industry. If anything, it would make the "truly aged" whiskies even more niche and a higher luxury.
- Eric_WVGG 12y ago
  If the end result is a quantum leap in the quality of “well whiskeys”, I won’t complain
  - tptacek 12y ago
    See: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-best-kept-secrets-in-bourbon-are.html http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-best-kept-secre...
    - ebiester 12y ago
      ...which is fine for buying at home, but doesn't help at a bar. The lowest of the low end is much better than 20 years ago, but is still a bit rough taste-wise. That said, we don't appreciate the exponential rate of improvement in the low end of spirits and wine.
      - defen 12y ago
        > That said, we don't appreciate the exponential rate of improvement in the low end of spirits and wine. Really makes you wonder what actual navy rum or frontier whiskey tasted like 200 years ago.
- tptacek 12y ago
  There's good whiskey available for ~$20/bottle, or even less, so I'm not sure this market is a great new vista. For what it's worth: what you're pitching is basically Templeton Rye (albeit for Scotch), which is also chemically "improved".

by beat 12y ago

bweitzman 12y ago

Off topic, but I'm always bothered when people say something like "It's the last 1% that counts the most". It's misleading to say that any single percentage point is more important than any other. If the last 1% is the most important, doesn't it make more sense to call it the last 99%? I suppose if you are considering only the top percentiles of whatever you're talking about, it makes more sense. If you're only looking at the 95th-100th percentiles, then 1% of total quality is actually more like a 20% change in the space you're considering. But at that the same, to arbitrarily say that only things in the top 5 percent are worth considering is, well, arbitrary. /rant

vacri 12y ago
Not quite the same thing, but when I see low fat "2% fat milk", it sounds to me that there should be 2% by volume of visible fat spheroids... :)
- auxym 12y ago
  Your milk also likely is labeled "homogenized", otherwise the fatty cream would indeed separate and float on top.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Off topic, but I'm always bothered when people say something like "It's the last 1% that counts the most". It's misleading to say that any single percentage point is more important than any other. Its actually valid when its related to something like the Pareto principle, when you are talking about which percent by one measure is important in consideration of some other measure.
beat 12y ago
In genetics, that last 2% is the difference between a human being and a chimpanzee.
- dzhiurgis 12y ago
  Is it really the last, or just 2% spread across the code?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    It's not the last.
ctdonath 12y ago
Two words: uncanny valley.

_delirium 12y ago

An interesting bit to me is that even ultra-traditional distilleries have by now accepted that color can be matched through nontraditional means, and that doesn't seem to cause much trouble. Even single-malt Scotch, otherwise quite strictly regulated, permits artificial color additive E150 (but no other additives). Admittedly color is probably comparatively easy to fake convincingly, especially in a uniform liquid setting where the color perception is not so complex. But that it's accepted even at the expensive "purist" levels does seem like already a chink in the armor of the idea that the only right way to do it is with a fully traditional method. A fully traditional method of coloring would leave it to whatever color is picked up from the mash and barrel-aging, and I could imagine someone arguing that only in that way do the aromas/flavors/colors subtly "match" properly. But it seems not to be seen as an issue.

ars 12y ago
E150 is caramel color. As a side note, do Europeans memorize what each E number is?
- waqf 12y ago
  Probably just as many as Americans who memorize what Red #40 is.
  - ars 12y ago
    Americans don't have to memorize it, they see Red and know it's a color.
- matt4077 12y ago
  I know E150 but nothing else. Plus yellow #5. Thanks to eminem.
- sgift 12y ago
  Nope, but E150 is pretty well known because it is ... everywhere. But we do know that if whatever you buy has to many E numbers on its label its probably something you do not want to eat (That's a rule of thumb: Everything, even water, has a E number, but companies usually only put them on the labels for the not-so-nice stuff)

mutagen 12y ago

I'm looking forward to the flavor experimentations that will result from this. Shortening the feedback loop, providing additional 'knobs' to turn, and reducing costs of trying new techniques will hopefully result in some amazing new tasty beverages.

erichurkman 12y ago

If they get 98% of the flavor profile right and bring costs down substantially, they'd open up their products to a ton of people who can't currently afford to drink "40 year Scotch" but still want to try it/enjoy it. That's huge. It won't kill the craft whiskey industry. If anything, it would make the "truly aged" whiskies even more niche and a higher luxury.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago
If the end result is a quantum leap in the quality of “well whiskeys”, I won’t complain
- tptacek 12y ago
  See: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-best-kept-secrets-in-bourbon-are.html http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-best-kept-secre...
  - ebiester 12y ago
    ...which is fine for buying at home, but doesn't help at a bar. The lowest of the low end is much better than 20 years ago, but is still a bit rough taste-wise. That said, we don't appreciate the exponential rate of improvement in the low end of spirits and wine.
    - defen 12y ago
      > That said, we don't appreciate the exponential rate of improvement in the low end of spirits and wine. Really makes you wonder what actual navy rum or frontier whiskey tasted like 200 years ago.
tptacek 12y ago
There's good whiskey available for ~$20/bottle, or even less, so I'm not sure this market is a great new vista. For what it's worth: what you're pitching is basically Templeton Rye (albeit for Scotch), which is also chemically "improved".