Getting ready to try the DBA clone from CYBI. In the show, it was "not cloned" but Tasty made recommendations based around adjustments that were needed. Did those adjustments turn out to be accurate?

Don't know, but i thought that session was a bit strange with them only having sour tainted DBA's to reference with. If I remember, wasnt' that why they said it wasn't cloned?

No, it wasn't that. Tasty built a clone recipe without having interviewed the brewer yet. He accidentally put to much chocolate malt and his hop schedule was backwards from Firestone's. They were also a little off on the percentages of the base malt mixture (Tasty had a 60/40 2-row/MO mix while Firestone uses an 80/20). Also, Tasty's wasn't oaky enough so he added 11 days to the oak schedule.

Quite a few changes were made on the show and the brewer was very generous with the recipe. Just wondering before I buy my ingredients,

I though it was cloned per this re-brew show
http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/659

It was supposedly cloned on the re-brew show, but the commecial example wasn't accurate to the normal DBA. As a F/W local drinker, I have to agree that the batches of DBA they tasted around that time were different form the normal. not as malty, and maybe a slight, slight, slight bit sour.

I've brewed this clone 4 times. On my system, I backed off the crystal malts about 20% from the stated recipe. It was only an adjustment for my system. Being a local I have access to Unfiltered 100% oak fermented DBA at the brewery or tap room. I think it was damn close what I ended up with.

Brew it. Each time I've brewed it, even when not cloned, the beer was AWESOME.

WLP002 is a much better fit then WLP005.

The Fool.

Great. Thanks for the tips. Especially on the 002 versus 005.

That's what I was referring to above.

This is why I like the show. Even if I phuk it up, I'll probably still make a great beer.