# Hazer advice



## LiveCommander (Jul 29, 2011)

Hi,

I'm new to lighting and this forum (been lurking for a while though) and although I have learned a great deal about hazers in general I'm still not sure which one to get. I have narrowed down my choices based on responses to a similar post over at blueroom to these three:

```
[FONT=Courier New]                              EUR     US$ (VAT excluded)

Antari X-310 DMX Fazer       419         597     Uses standard fog liquid.
Showtec Nebula HZ 450        427         608     Only 1 DMX channel. Uses special hazer liquid.
LOOK UNIQUE 2.1              652         929
[/FONT]
```


I will be using this to light bands on an infrequent basis (max 10 times per year) so I wouldn't mind paying a lot less. However I require DMX and that seems to increase the price to these levels.

My main reason for posting here is that the Radiance and Unique hazers seem to be very popular with members in this forum. The Radiance is a bit of a problem for me though as I can't find any dealers in Europe (Netherlands or Germany would be perfect) so even if I find one I'm unlikely to get a good price and servicing may be difficult.

Although there's still a significant price difference between the Antari/ShowTec offerings and the Unique, it's small enough to make me wonder whether it makes sense to go for the Unique, so my question is....

*What is so great about the Unique that I should consider it in favor of the Antari/ShowTec and be worth paying the additional amount?*

Basically what I'm looking for is:


An 'affordable' DMX-controllable hazer that leaves as little residue as possible. Presummably that means it should be water based (glycerol).
Will be used for our band to see light beams from our LED pars (Tri-led) and scanners (backlight). We also have some Martin RoboColors (2x4x250W Halogen color changers) as front light
Will probably be used 10 times per year at most but I want to be able to test our light shows with haze so renting would not be ideal
Will be used in small to 'medium' sized venues, say 200-800 people
I'm currently designing a fairly elaborate light show (relative to our modest equipment) which will be fully synced to our music. I'm investing a lot of time in this so I want our show to look good.
I've been told over at blueroom that the haze that is produced by units of this type (water based) is going to be very similar and that none of them will leave much residue.

I've read some complaints about short hang time but is that a problem for my aplication which is rock shows, not theatrics? The ability to also use it as a fogger for some songs would be a nice bonus but we already have a (really old) fog machine that we could use for a true fog effect.

I could find few videos on the net of the Unique and Antari units and although it's hard to tell from a video the Unique did seem to produce something that is a bit more hazy than what the Antari does. The video's didn't show any light beams though, just fog in a well-lit space. I did see a video of the Radiance and that looked great but because of the bad general availibity in Europe it does not seem an option plus it would probably be a good bit more expensive than the Unique (which is made in Germany, right next door so to speak).


----------



## chausman (Jul 29, 2011)

Are there any places that rent hazers near you? If your only using it "max 10 times a year", 600-900USD is a *lot* for something used that little. If not, then...never mind!

Oh, and if you want a suggestion, the Antari, for the same reason as above, thats a lot of money for something used so little.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 29, 2011)

chausman said:


> Are there any places that rent hazers near you? If your only using it "max 10 times a year", 600-900USD is a *lot* for something used that little. If not, then...never mind!
> 
> Oh, and if you want a suggestion, the Antari, for the same reason as above, thats a lot of money for something used so little.



Very true. But like I wrote I want to be able to test our light shows with haze so renting would not be ideal. Renting a proper hazer (JEM K1) would cost 30 Euro (43 US$) per day so after 20 shows (say 2-3 years) I would reach break-even. I also won't have to worry about picking it up and bringing it back the day after a performance. On the other hand I'll have to worry a bit about maintenance and failures. Admittedly a bit of G.A.S. may also be involved.

I'm still debating for myself whether it's wise to actually purchase a hazer as opposed to renting but the question is, _if_ I'm going to purchase one would it be better to spend US$900 on the Unique or US$600 on one of the others. I'm thinking there must be a reason why people seem to like the Unique so much and why they are recommending it and not one of the other units I mentioned.

If the main difference is that the Unique can be operated several hours, 7 days a week 365 days a year for several years versus the other once a weekend for a few hours for one or two years I might as well get one of the cheaper ones. I like quality but I don't need industrial strength like that. The visual quality of the haze is much more important to me. *Fluid consumption is also not a factor given the infrequent use.

*If I drop the DMX requirement I could also consider the Antari Z-300 MK II Fazer which is only EUR 206 / $ 294. That is an amount I don't have to think about but on the other hand if this is an unreliable budget unit that creates a vastly inferior I would consider it money wasted.

I believe the Z-300 is more or less similar to the Antari X-310. Having DMX control would be nice though as I'm actually programming my own application to control our lights from my keyboard (responds 'intelligently' to specific chords/notes that I play and switches in sounds). Could be nice to trigger the unit to create a burst of fog for a little while for some songs that required a moody atmoshpere. But I suppose I _could_ do the same thing with a non-DMX remote or let someone control the unit from FOH.


----------



## David Ashton (Jul 29, 2011)

Hazers have been the bain of my life for years, constant problems, I have a pile of dead hazers, mainly Martin/Gem.I reluctantly bought a Unique as it was specified for a show and it has been brilliant, excellent control, totally reliable, self clean very low fuel use, there may be better units out there but I certainly wouldn't risk the money to find one.I've never had much luck with Antari.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 29, 2011)

David Ashton said:


> Hazers have been the bain of my life for years, constant problems,



I guess that would make a good argument for renting, if it wasn't for what follows:


David Ashton said:


> I have a pile of dead hazers, mainly Martin/Gem.I reluctantly bought a Unique as it was specified for a show and it has been brilliant, excellent control, totally reliable, self clean very low fuel use, there may be better units out there but I certainly wouldn't risk the money to find one.I've never had much luck with Antari.



Mmm, perhaps I should just buy a dirt cheap fazer like the Antari/ShowTec Vivid F-1 for EUR 78 / US$ 111 for my own programming and testing of lightshows and rent a proper one for actual live use. As long as I can suppress my hazer related G.A.S.  that might be the best option, there seems little point in buying something that's halfway there for a relative large amount of money. It seems buying dirt cheap + rent as needed or buying really good quality are the two best options in my case.

I suppose I could suppress G.A.S. related to a hazer by using those funds to buy other cool stuff like scanners  .


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 29, 2011)

if it were me,
I would rent a MDG Atmosphere.

I bought 3 uniques for an theatre show. 
No hang time, huge fluid usage, even with 3 on the stage, the haze never evens out, it ends up being very dense near the hazer, non existant everywhere else.

to cap it all off, 2 of them needed repairs costing more than 700$ each... 

In comparison, I have bought 1 MDG touring model for an arena show, and it has been completely bulletproof.
Sips fluid, incredible hang time, sometimes I turn the machine off at lunch, and when I come back, there is still a great even haze in the room.
Best hazer by far that I have ever purchased.
It is oil based, but the particle size is so small, it doesn't leave the residue of a DF-50. All my tours with them have come back as clean as with a water based hazer.

Sorry for the rant,
I feel very strongly that the unique is crap....
and that the MDG is the gold standard by which all hazers should be judged.

However, I have not tried the antari nor the showtec, however, I would guess they are similar, but I reserve my judgement, as I have tried them in person.


----------



## derekleffew (Jul 29, 2011)

LiveCommander said:


> ...If I drop the DMX requirement I could also consider... But I suppose I _could_ do the same thing with a non-DMX remote or let someone control the unit from FOH.


It may be less expensive to buy an on-off hazer and a DMX relay, such as this, or build your own, here or here.


----------



## Tex (Jul 29, 2011)

Although it doesn't help with the financial part of your decision, I have the Antari HZ 300 and am happy with the results. Lots of haze and good hang time. It's also pretty frugal with the juice. I probably put about 100 hours on it this last year with shows and classes and I haven't had any problems at all.


----------



## kicknargel (Jul 29, 2011)

In genreal, and oil-based hazer is always going to produce much longer hang-time, leading to a better, more diffuse, true "haze" effect. The classic rock 'n roll look, where you see the beams of light nice and even but aren't aware of any billows of fog/haze, is produced by oil-based hazers (usually a DF-50). The trade-off is expense and health concerns. In a theatrical application, I'll always go water-based, because actors' voices are sensitive to the haze and it can cause problems. For your rock show, you have to choose your priorities. I'd suggest renting a couple different options to see what you like.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 29, 2011)

Sorry Nicholas, you have set off one of my pet peeves.
No disrespect intended.
There is NO SUCH THING as water based haze.
It is a marketing term only! 
All "water based haze" should be labeled as "Glycol based"

But, in my experience with singers, glycol is a much harder chemical on vocal cords than the food grade mineral oil in an oil based hazer.
The glycol acts as a drying agent, thus causing more problems than the oil based haze.
You are also putting a large amount more chemical in the air, per the amount of fluid being used, due to the low hang time of the glycol based haze.

Here is a quote from the Actors Equity Study,
"In this study, exposure to mineral oil was not associated with increased respiratory or nasal symptom reporting, as glycol exposure was. There was, however, a statistically significant increase in irritated throat symptoms among those Actors with the highest exposures in the detailed exposure analysis (those with more than 10 minutes at peak mineral oil exposure, principally Actors from Rent)."

I believe either product can be used safely, but stating that glycol based haze is safer or less irritating than oil based would be incorrect, as long as exposures are well within normal concentrations.

Respectfully,


----------



## derekleffew (Jul 29, 2011)

Sounds like _someone_ has been drinking Dalamar's Kool-Aid (fluid). 

Dalamar said:


> ...General rule of thumb, however:
> 
> Cheap = Glycol (what most of you call wrongly "water based")
> 
> ...



But, that doesn't make him wrong.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 29, 2011)

I like the Kool-aid


----------



## kicknargel (Jul 29, 2011)

Thanks, Joshua, I always appreciate actual information. My anecdotal experience has been that actors/singer complain about the oil-based more, but maybe that's because it's able to get thicker.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 29, 2011)

I have seen that as well,
To combat it, I try to move the hazer as far from the stage as possible, sometimes on a balcony rail.
That way, the haze has time to distribute a bit before it reaches the acting space.
Also, with the MDG, you can run it at extremely low output, 10psi or so and allow the haze to build slowly, unlike the hated DF-50...
This seems to help a lot as well.


----------



## JD (Jul 29, 2011)

Quick but important tangent here-

If you have not used hazers or fog machines: Be aware that newer smoke detectors in fire alarm systems see the haze as smoke. Often problems will not occur until the the ventilation system kicks on and in in-duct detectors are exposed. 

You want to flush out any problems at a given venue before the actual show. This often means running the alarm system in "test" mode under a fire watch and over-using the device to insure there are no problems.

/end tangent


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 30, 2011)

derekleffew said:


> It may be less expensive to buy an on-off hazer and a DMX relay, such as this, or build your own, here or here.



I thought about that but I didn't think that cycling the power is the right way to go with these machines, or is it? What about things like wam up time?

I suppose it would also be possible to use a DMX relay to actually 'press' whatever buttons are on the machine but that requires modifying the machine itself which may or may not be easy to do (and will instantly void any warranty). I'm an EE so in itself it wouldn't present a problem.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 30, 2011)

kicknargel said:


> Thanks, Joshua, I always appreciate actual information. My anecdotal experience has been that actors/singer complain about the oil-based more, but maybe that's because it's able to get thicker.



If the oil-based machines (crackers) produce particles that are so much smaller than those produced by water/glycol/glycerol based ones I would assume that those smaller particles can and will penetrate deeper into the respiratory system. I can imagine that could lead to increased irritation.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 30, 2011)

Woodj32177 said:


> You are also putting a large amount more chemical in the air, per the amount of fluid being used, due to the low hang time of the glycol based haze.



Don't want to argue with you as I have zero formal knowledge in this area but in the case of humans and machines that are actively sucking in the air I wonder if the amount of chemical that you put into the air is relevant _if_ you are putting it into the air only because it's also disappearing from the air at a faster rate from condensation or simply dropping to the floor.

Any areas where condensation occurs will certainly have more residue but for the humans (and machines with fans) I would think that it's the actual _concentration_ that's _in_ the air at any given moment that determines how much they ingest.

Would be interesting to know what percentage of particles is absorbed in the lungs when you inhale and how much is expelled again from the lungs when you exhale and how this depends on the substance. Since the glycol based stuff is hydrophilic I would expect a relatively large amount to stay in the lungs. If the mineral oil that is used is hyrdophobic perhaps more of it gets expelled again (but as I mentioned in my previous post since the particles are smaller they are likely to penetrate deeper into the lungs which I imagine might cause more absorption).

Just another random thought: could it be that by putting out more haze than is actually needed for effect the concentration of hase increases because the air gets saturated and that thereby condenstation increases and the amount of residue increases as well?


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 30, 2011)

JD said:


> Quick but important tangent here-
> 
> If you have not used hazers or fog machines: Be aware that newer smoke detectors in fire alarm systems see the haze as smoke. Often problems will not occur until the the ventilation system kicks on and in in-duct detectors are exposed.
> 
> /end tangent



Thanks for the heads up. I've seen that come up in many threads, including the bit about in-duct detectors but I think this information has a place in any thread on foggers or hazers that is started by a newb like me.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 30, 2011)

The more I read and think about this the more I think the way to go for me right now is to purchase a very cheap hazer/fazer for testing purposes only (to see what my light show looks like because a 3d visualizer only gets you so far, especally if you're inexperienced like me) and postpone purchasing a more advanced and expensive unit for live usage. I can rent pretty much anything I want (even an MDG) and I can rent whatever is suitable for the venue.

Thanks to everybody for all the suggestions and advice.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 30, 2011)

LiveCommander said:


> If the oil-based machines (crackers) produce particles that are so much smaller than those produced by water/glycol/glycerol based ones I would assume that those smaller particles can and will penetrate deeper into the respiratory system. I can imagine that could lead to increased irritation.


 
Sorry,
I am unsure of the particle size of a glycol based hazer?
It may be smaller than the size of a DF-50 particle, or even smaller than the particle from an MDG? but I honestly have no idea.
What I do know is that the particle size of the droplets from an MDG are significantly smaller than the particles from an DF-50.
This makes the MDG a significantly cleaner hazer than an DF-50.

The Actors Equity study states as I quoted above, that in "normal concentrations" exposure to mineral oil was not associated with increased respiratory or nasal symptom reporting, as glycol exposure was.
This seems to prove that in most instances, mineral oil hazers will cause less respiratory distress than glycol will.
And you are absolutely correct, it is all about the concentration of haze that causes the distress, however, you need far more glycol haze than oil based haze to get the same effect.
I can run a MDG HO hazer for 4-6 weeks at a time on a single gallon of fluid. in that time 2 unique 2's while creating an uneven haze, will most likely go through 10-20 gallons of fluid each.
Shows such as Cirque's Believe that use the uniques, use 10-20 hazers, and buy their fluid in 55 gallon drums.

As for the haze disappearing from the air,
Once you have put a substance into the air, it will continue to exist in the air, even if it is not visible.
I would suggest with no proof whatsoever, that the glycol will continue to be detectable in the air long after the haze effect has diminished.

Also,
On my tours that used a Unique, I did still have residue on the dichroics of several moving lights, however, it was more of a dried on style of buildup, very unlike the oily buildup that happens with a DF-50.
To be honest it was very hard to clean off, but it wasn't as noticeable than the oil residue.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jul 30, 2011)

Its worth noting since a lot of electronic cigarettes use glycol. Since I've started using mine the effects have been pretty minimal. At first it was just a weird sensation (watery feeling) then it has gotten progressively better. It may just take the actors and/or artists just a bit of time to get used to whatever you are using. While some may have no experience others have probably been around haze their entire careers. At this point the only difference between glycol and mineral oil to me is the hang time. Mineral oil seems to last much longer than the glycol and cheaper in the long run.


----------



## LiveCommander (Jul 31, 2011)

Woodj32177 said:


> I am unsure of the particle size of a glycol based hazer



Just repeating what I've been reading but someone ('niclights') over at at the blue-room forum told me very specifically that


> Oil is considerably more expensive, the main advantages being a much smaller particle size (<1 micron, versus approx 20 micron for glycol) for long hang time and is more transparent with less diffusion.



I can totally understand how a much smaller particle size would explain the apparently much longer hang time of oil based haze and better transparency, which are being touted as the advantages of oil based haze pretty much all over the net. The 'expense' part of his statement was in reference to the machines themselves I think.


> As for the haze disappearing from the air,
> Once you have put a substance into the air, it will continue to exist in the air, even if it is not visible.
> I would suggest with no proof whatsoever, that the glycol will continue to be detectable in the air long after the haze effect has diminished.



I'm sure there's some truth in that but it would be nice if someone did (have access to) some actual research on where the particles go. What could explain the glycol particles becoming totally invisible? Is it that they get smaller as they evaporate themselves and break up into invididual molecules that become invisible? What percentage of glycol stays in the air and what percentage falls to the ground and 'condensates' and what happens with if after that?


> This seems to prove that in most instances, mineral oil hazers will cause less respiratory distress than glycol will.



If distress is used in this study in the sense of immediate discomfort rather than medical research on the long-term effect on human tissue that is not as comforting as it may seem. Many substances do not cause any immediate distress but are very unhealthy. It's with some reluctance that I use the following as an example but I don't think anyone has complained about (airborne) asbestos (particles) in the past but the stuff is devastating to the human body when inhaled and partly, as I understand, because of the very small size of airborne asbestos particles which allows them to penetrate deep into lungs and stay there. Afaik larger particles are more easily expelled by exhaling. I don't know the actual average or mininum size of asbestos particles though.


----------



## Wood4321 (Jul 31, 2011)

Right,
But the industry has been using oil based hazers for at least 20 years, with not a single health issue attributed to use.
If there was, I think we all would know about it, as every other hazer manufacturer would tell us all about it.
The reason you don't see the manufacturers touting the health issues of the glycol based haze, is that there is not a better option for Fog machines.
And all the manufacturers manufacture fog machines as well as hazers.
Including MDG! Most of the MDG Fog machines do indeed use Glycol based fluid.

Now, that being said, most times fog machines aren't used for an entire show, as hazers are.
I don't believe the irritation I was speaking of has anything do due with the depth of penetration to the lungs.
I believe, (and the research bears this out) that the discomfort shown by performers in a glycol hazed atmosphere, are having issues, based on the fact that the glycol drys out the mucous membranes in both the lungs, as well as the vocal cords.

And comparing aspestos to haze is absolutely ridiculous.
One is a known cancer causing agent, the others are used in food, and able to be safely ingested in reasonable quantities.


----------



## Esoteric (Aug 1, 2011)

I have read the studies both ways on health issues and there is nothing convincing.

I will tell you about my experiences with gear however and you can relate what you will.

I deal in used gear all the time and I can tell you without fail what units were used with mineral oil haze and what units were used with glycol (water based) haze.

The units used in a mineral oil environment have either a thin, slick, clear, oozing coat of oil or a thick, black, gooey covering of oil (depending on time of exposure and area of exposure). The units used in a glycol environment have no such coating. In addition mineral oil exposed motors will have about half the life expectancy of glycol exposed motors.

In addition when I worked at the PAC we had a $100,000 grand piano. We were not allowed to use mineral oil haze when the piano was out because of the effects.

To me, the smaller particle size and extra linger time are not worth it (and I am a very picky designer).

Mike


----------



## David Ashton (Aug 1, 2011)

No disrespect intended.
There is NO SUCH THING as water based haze.
It is a marketing term only!
All "water based haze" should be labeled as "Glycol based"
given that haze fluid is a mixture of distilled water and glycol, then either description would seem accurate


----------



## LiveCommander (Aug 1, 2011)

Woodj32177 said:


> And comparing aspestos to haze is absolutely ridiculous.
> One is a known cancer causing agent, the others are used in food, and able to be safely ingested in reasonable quantities.



I didn't mean to make a comparison between asbestos and mineral oil, glycol or glycerol at all. That's why I wrote I was reluctant to use it as an example. I just wanted to emphasize that immediate physical (dis)comfort is not the only factor to consider.

Perhaps I should have looked for a different example. Maybe something likhe allergies which I believe can sometimes develop after repeated exposure to a substance. Note that I'm _not_ suggesting or implying that people are likely to develope an allergy to mineral oil, glycol, or glycerol . I'm sure we would have known about that after 20 years.

Back on topic: I have found a cheap fazer with DMX, the ShowTec Atmos F350, only EUR 129 / US$ 185. Some of the ShowTec fazers and foggers are re-badged Antari's but I'm not sure if that is the case with this one.


----------



## Wood4321 (Aug 1, 2011)

Right, 
But the "Active" ingredient is glycol, not water.
The water is merely a carrier of the active ingredient.

In my opinion, that makes it glycol based, not water based.


----------



## Wood4321 (Aug 1, 2011)

Mike,
Have you tried the MDG?
I have used DF-50's for tours, and my equipment was exactly as you state.
HOWEVER, 
When I switched over to MDG's the equipment comes back in pretty much the same state as a water based hazer.
(Crap, I am starting to sound like an MDG Sales guy....)
In any case, I won't be buying any other type of hazer any time soon, especially since the MDG's are built like tanks, and have a 5 year warranty.


----------



## Esoteric (Aug 1, 2011)

I have not Josh. I am perfectly content with my Magnum and Jem Hazers. I haven't seen a venue yet that they do not work like a charm in.

Mike


----------



## Joebar (Aug 1, 2011)

Hi there!
I highly recommend Hazebase´s Basehazer pro ,it´s a really good hazer built in to a AMPTown case ,very rugged design and extremely fast warmup time around 30sec. powerfull fan and VERY low on liquid! Been thru a whole bunch of JEM/Martin and Antaris and nothing comes close PERIOD!List price is 970 euros. A bit on the high side i now but for touring and trouble free use it´s a bargain.

hazebase.com


----------



## Wood4321 (Aug 1, 2011)

Joebar said:


> Hi there!
> I highly recommend Hazebase´s Basehazer pro ,it´s a really good hazer built in to a AMPTown case ,very rugged design and extremely fast warmup time around 30sec. powerfull fan and VERY low on liquid! Been thru a whole bunch of JEM/Martin and Antaris and nothing comes close PERIOD!List price is 970 euros. A bit on the high side i now but for touring and trouble free use it´s a bargain.
> 
> hazebase.com


 
Joebar,
Isn't the hasebase basically a rebranded unique hazer in a different box? the electronics look very similar at least..


----------



## Wood4321 (Aug 1, 2011)

Esoteric said:


> I have not Josh. I am perfectly content with my Magnum and Jem Hazers. I haven't seen a venue yet that they do not work like a charm in.
> 
> Mike


 
Fair enough, To each their own,


----------



## Joebar (Aug 2, 2011)

Woodj32177 said:


> Joebar,
> Isn't the hasebase basically a rebranded unique hazer in a different box? the electronics look very similar at least..



Your right.
Both Unique and Hazebase is built by Ottec (Ottec Technology GmbH) ,so their very much the same.


----------



## derekleffew (Aug 4, 2011)

I thought of this thread while reading in the latest issue of _Protocol_ about the latest developments in
ANSI E1.5 - 2009 Entertainment Technology - Theatrical Fog Made with Aqueous Solutions of Di- and Trihydric Alcohols .pdf
and
ANSI E1.23 - 2010 Entertainment Technology - Design and Execution of Theatrical Fog Effects

It's tough to argue with a published ANSI standard.

For studies, see http://tsp.plasa.org/tsp/working_groups/fs.html .


----------



## LiveCommander (Aug 6, 2011)

To close the original topic: I ordered the ShowTec F-350 and tried it out last night.

It's labeled a 'fazer' and that's what it is. If you set it to maximum output it's more like a fog machine (I'm currenty using it with JEM ZR mix) and with the included wireless remote that's all you get, on or off. However if you control it through DMX you can set adjust the output what seem to be 255 discrete steps which could be quite useful to maintain a faze.

Using a large fan to disperse the clouds does help to make the end result look a bit more like haze even at higher output.

I think this unit will serve it's purpose of allowing me to design and test lightshows in our rather spacious rehearsal room (which is actually something like 30x18x15 feet) and I might even use if for some gigs or at least bring it along as a backup or use it as a smoke machine in addition to any hazer we might rent or purchase at a later time.

Thanks everyone for all input. Now on to my next thread because I also tried my new lightsets last night and I wasn't entire pleased with them.


----------



## ejsandstrom (Aug 7, 2011)

Tex said:


> Although it doesn't help with the financial part of your decision, I have the Antari HZ 300 and am happy with the results. Lots of haze and good hang time. It's also pretty frugal with the juice. I probably put about 100 hours on it this last year with shows and classes and I haven't had any problems at all.


 

kicknargel said:


> Thanks, Joshua, I always appreciate actual information. My anecdotal experience has been that actors/singer complain about the oil-based more, but maybe that's because it's able to get thicker.



I know it is not one of the choices but our HZ300 (antari version and a MBT version) have been flawless.

Please keep in mind that we use our far more than most. Figure 8 hours on Saturday and 12-14 hours on Sunday along with an hour or two during the week. We use around a gallon of fluid a year. We have a gym size auditorium in 10 to 15 minutes for zero to full desired haze level. Granted we have awesome air flow. 

Our singers have never once complained about a hazer affecting their voice. And they sing 4-5 songs each service and 5-6 services a day. 

It is DMX controlled (On/Off) and I paid around $440 USD for them new.


----------

