Acetobacter is an aerobic bacteria used to make natural vinegar from wine, beer, or cider, and doesn’t ever encounter alcohol over 19% or so. The alcoholic content of the brew it lives in is created by yeast (saccaromyces uvarium) which peters out around 20%. In order to get a higher alcoholic concentration, distillation is used to raise the alcoholic content higher than the alcohol tolerance of the yeast. Besides depleting bacteria and fungi of water (that’s why alcohol “burns” on the way down, from what I understand) it also reduces the amount of gases that can be dissolved in a liquid, assuming the liquid is water based, and at a standard temp/pressure.
I think the vodka manufacturers do less charcoal filtering because it costs money and time. I also agree that non-blind taste tests tend to be less than fully useful, though I saw a episode of the Screensavers where the non-filtered stuff was described as nasty, and the filtered stuff as smooth. Wasn’t a blind tast test though, so… meh.
Non-blind tests are not meaningless, but they are subjective and non scientific. If you need a better test, please conduct one yourself. I really don’t feel much need to carry out such a test myself, in the same way I don’t feel much need personally to run a double blind test to show which tastes better Absolut Vodka, or Gordon’s Vodka.
As for why the makers of cheap Vodka don’t do extra filtering, that would be a good question for indipendant distillers of cheap vodka. I am sure filtering will only go so far, but I’m not so sure what can be improved in Vodka other than the filtering. It isn’t like Whiskey which improves with age, water supply, still shape, barrel previous contents, and filtering. Vodka just seems to require good quality water. Large distillers will produce vodkas at several grades of quality, so it is important for their cheap brands to be noticably worse than their expensive brands.
Because there is a market for cheap vodka. Someone chugging down vodka/tonics for $2.50 a pop doesn’t care what their vodka would taste like chilled and straight up.
Well this discovery has allowed me to restart an old hobby of making flavoured vodkas. The problem with such a hobby is that if you start with too rough a vodka it was never really good to drink the flavoured vodka neat, but smoothe vodkas were so expensive, that if the flavouring turned out to be not so good then you lost a lot of expensive vodka. So extra filtered cheap vodka gives n a way to restart this hobby with cheaper costs
I meant no disrespect to your pallet. Perhaps “meaningless” was too strong, but how do we know this isn’t like the CD magic marker thing? Plenty of audiophiles swore that made an obvious improvement.
If anyone wants to run a double blind test, I suggest using three samples: cheap vodka straight from the bottle, cheap vodka run through a filtering pitcher a given number of times, and cheap vodka run through the same pitcher the same number of times with the filter removed. The latter will eliminate the possibility that the pitcher’s plastic is absorbing the vodka’s flavor, or vice versa.
Personally, I don’t see why there’s so much doubt. I assume the folks who don’t believe the filter improves vodka still believe it improves water, right? All those Brita customers can’t be wrong. And what’s in good vodka besides alcohol and water?
I wonder whether aeration is a factor? Water tastes better after it is aerated. Wonder if the same is true of vodka? Surely the filtration process entails some aeration?
No more than simply pouring it, AFAICT. You pour water (or vodka) into the top compartment of the pitcher, it drips down through the filter cartridge, and comes out the bottom of the cartridge into the main part of the pitcher. The inside of the filter is always wet; if you ever let it dry out, you’re supposed to soak it for 15 minutes before using the filter again.
Well, that’s where you’ve perhaps made one too many assumptions.
Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t some water supplies that benefit taste-wise from a Britta (mostly small wells), but I’m skeptical that all or even most Britta users could really detect a difference in a blind taste-test.
And I’m also skeptically agnostic about whether a Britta improves vodka. Given the number of verified stories of vodka brands adding fancy packaging, doubling the price and seeing increased sales with the exact same product, I’m skeptical about any detectable taste difference among cheap and expensive vodkas. I’m not saying I refuse to believe it, just that I’ll need some good evidence.
Oh, there are definitely taste differences among vodkas. Recently, I took two different brands of potato vodka to a potato-themed party. I had never tried either brand. One turned out to be very smooth, the other very harsh. (No price difference, though. They cost about the same.)
The only way for it to be ‘proven’ to you is to do a double-blind taste test yourself. Reading about other’s trials (double-blind or not) will never prove it to you .
Me personally, I’m fasinated by the idea, and will try it as soon as i have an extra $30 to waste on a Brita and vodka
OK lets put my thoughts slightly better.
I am well aware of how you can fool yourself into thinking one thing better than the other, and would also love to see the results of a double blind test on this theory.
But, the difference I noted is at least at the upper end of self deluding difference scales. I say that because I found the unfiltered cheap vodka unpleasent to drink neat, whilst the filtered cheap vodka (even after a few days in the bottle, so absorbed air is not a factor) pleasant to drink neat. Now if I am deluding myself to such an extent, I would rather remain deluded! Why? because it will save me some money on not buying expensive vodka.
So I’ll say that using a brita 5 times to filter cheap Gordon’s Vodka seems to me to make it taste far better, up to the quality of a more expensive vodka. The filtered Vodka seemed to me to taste much better than the vodka I had not filtered.
Ok, I conducted the above test last night; here’s how it went:
Drank shot of cheap vodka straight from bottle. Very rough, almost couldn’t keep it down.
Next, poured cheap vodka through filter and drank one shot. Much better.
Emptied (and drank) residue of cheap filtered vodka from pitcher, rinsed with water, rinsed with a little more vodka, and then ran cheap vodka through the pitcher without the filter. Drank one shot - passable taste.
Quenched thirst with double of cheap vodka from bottle. Taste: best yet!
Dropped pitcher on floor spilling unfiltered vodka. Also banged head on sink trying to catch pitcher. Drank a double of remaining unfiltered (but pitchered) vodka to ease pain and clear head. Taste: pretty good.
Mopped up vodka on floor with filter and sucked on filter, so as not to waste any tasting opportunity. Taste: a little charcoal-like, but pleasant.
Drank remaining cheap vodka straight from bottle (spilling some into the pitcher). Taste: mellow.
Rinsed bottle out with cheap filter from vodka and removed pitcher from cheap flavour. Drank remaining bottle from filter (taste: fantastic!) and vodka’d the filter over the pitcher.
From prone position, pitchered the filter out of the vodka and drank one shot without tasting it, followed by a second shot filtered from the straight stuff to confirm this opinion. Result: no change.
Threw up into pitcher to clear head, rinsed with cheap vodka (mouth and pitcher), swallowed, threw up, filtered pitcher through plughole drinking cheap bottle. Taste: carrots.
Following a two-hour rest period, finished off the vodka, followed by 3 dunkin’ donuts, half a pizza, and several Jack Daniels. Consciousness: lost.
Dead Cat has a point. In any taste test the first shot of vodka is always going to be the nastiest and the sixth one won’t be that bad no matter what you are drinking. So I guess maybe experimenting with quater shots would work better? Or maybe diluting the vodka with some room temperature distilled water to get less burn and more taste? There has to be a way, this is the dope after all is it not?
I have a Brita pitcher already, along with a number of vodka’s, rum’s, and tequila’s all of varying qualities. I am also having a Super Bowl party in a few weeks. I will conduct a scientific double blind taste test, record the results, and report back.
I was under the impression that tequila quality was more a factor of aging than filtration factors. That, and the better tequilas are 100% blue agave, while the cheaper ones use adjuncts.
