Chill filtering?

No, it's the other way around. Whisky that has not been chill-filtered gets cloudy when water is added. Chill-filtering is done to prevent this. It seems that 46% is the lowest ABV that a non-chill-filtered whisky can have without turning cloudy; for this reason you will rarely if ever see a non-chill-filtered whisky sold below 46% - producers want to sell a nice clear liquid in the bottle.

That's a good question, but since the chill filtering necessarily removes flavour components, it is generally regarded as a bad thing among conoisseurs. Chill filtering is only done so that the "uneducated" masses will not get suspicios by the look of the stuff.

Of course, sorry about that. :-)

Yup, and that is what I really like to know. Has anyone really noticed the difference, or is it just the idea that is compelling? Everywhere I read that chill filtering takes away oils and flavours, but have those who have written this experienced it themselves or are they just copying the idea?

How would you tell??? The only definitive answer is to take one barrel. split it in half and chill filter it and leave the other half unfiltered. Any other way, and you're introducing other variables which will muddy the waters so to speak.

Roger

It makes sense to me that any tilting of the delicate balance of a whisky should be avoided, especially something as invasive as chill filtering.

Look at the facts. 99.8% of the contents of a given bottle consists of ethyl alcohol and distilled water, both of which have no scent and no taste.

The final 0.2% are what defines the character of the whisky and we do not want any of that stripped away.

Even if we accept that chill filtering "only" removes the fatty acids that congeal and cause the contents of the bottle to haze over, these acids definitely contribute to the mouthfeel, body and texture of the dram.

Chill filtering is unnecessary. Makers should educate drinkers to the fact that the haze that forms at low temperatures or when adding water or ice (no comment) is completely natural and not a defect.

Or - and this is my preferred alternative - they should bottle everything at not less than 46% which will keep the fatty acids from congealing.

Al Jones

For what it's worth (and since it's a subjective view that's not much) I tasted two versions of the Arran malt at Whisky Live a couple of years ago - same age staement etc - one CF and one NCF - and I preferred the chill filterred on that occasion. I can't remember why, I just remember that I did.

Now that may make me a Philistine but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, I believe you should drink whatever whisky you enjoy, however you enjoy it. That said, I find that what I enjoy can change from one minute to then next - and is heavily dependent on whatever I've just had. At Whisky Live I'd just had quite a lot!

Of course it is not necessarily a good thing, chill filtration. It could be that unpleasantly tasting compounds are filtered out. So I think it depends on the kind of whisky you drink. I totally agree that you should drink whatever you prefer, not what others say is "best".

Galwaygirl

Well chill filtering often go along with colouring and watering down to 40%. Especially the last thing is not good for me. Diluting the whisky 40% gives a product that depends a lot of what you are diluting it from. It can be from 50-60% and apart from diluting the alcohol you also dilutes the various compunds that makes the whisky taste and smell good. I think a whiksy diluted from 50% cs to 40% will be better than the ones diluted from 60%. Personally I had some real good experiences with low % cask strength whiksyes

MacdEFFE