• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Smoke Machine

#61
[skyraider] said:
I'm playing in a band where the lighting crew always sets up near my side of the stage. And every time they have a smoke machine set up, usually just a foot or two from my foot. All though the gig they are blasting that thing and I'm hating it. The thing irritates my eyes and throat--I have a scratchy throat for days after the gig.

Nearly 20 years ago I quit smoking for my health. I am a pretty serious bicyclist, usually riding over 80 miles a week.

No way am I risking my lungs for a cool lighting effect in some crappy club. I've told them that I'm not going to be on the same side of the stage as the smoke machine anymore. If they want the effect then the guitar player and lead singer can have as much as they want.

Anyone else have this experience with smoke machines? I think this is the reason I don't see them very often with other bands.
Click to expand...

Is that the offensive smoke in your avatar? :) Sorry, couldn't help but notice, haha.
 
#62
[skyraider] said:
I'm playing in a band where the lighting crew always sets up near my side of the stage. And every time they have a smoke machine set up, usually just a foot or two from my foot. All though the gig they are blasting that thing and I'm hating it. The thing irritates my eyes and throat--I have a scratchy throat for days after the gig.

Nearly 20 years ago I quit smoking for my health. I am a pretty serious bicyclist, usually riding over 80 miles a week.

No way am I risking my lungs for a cool lighting effect in some crappy club. I've told them that I'm not going to be on the same side of the stage as the smoke machine anymore. If they want the effect then the guitar player and lead singer can have as much as they want.

Anyone else have this experience with smoke machines? I think this is the reason I don't see them very often with other bands.
Click to expand...

Only time I never hated a smoke machine was during a musical break when the lead singer smoked us out to the gills. Smells and tastes like chemical death. But darn it is always funny! And I'm never the guy picking it up. Otherwise, ban them.
 
#64
electracoyote said:
Often, lighting companies and venues that feature a light show will insist on enhancing the effect by using fog, and in my experience they have no shame telling the band it's a non-negotiable. You want to use that company or play that stage, fog is part of the deal. And, in their defense, they are right, a fogged light show is twice as impressive.

I have had the unpleasant experience of drawing the short straw and getting stuck right next to the fog machine. I'm sensitive to any kind of particulates in the air, and it was a miserable experience. Also, over time, the standard fog will get into the inner workings of your gear and collect there. Never a good thing.

I have had much better experiences with water-based vapor fog. It's more expensive, and not everyone wants to use it in their machines, but it is a possible option for those considering using fog.
Click to expand...

I find the "water-based" nomenclature to be misleading because it's actually glycol that is the active ingredient. Like the stuff they use in anti-freeze. Apparently there have been problems with people actually using antifreeze in their smoke machines, so the industry supposedly came up with the term "water-based" to prevent this. That's the story, anyway. I'm more inclined to think that the industry just doesn't want people to know that they are breathing-in glycol-- it sounds so much healthier and natural to say "water-based" than to say "glycol-based," after all.

But here's the thing I've noticed-- I can't think of a single band I've seen live that used it. Not even back in the 80's when I was going to see heavy metal bands. If so many great shows can be pulled off without it then why are we soaking in glycol??
 
#65
[skyraider] said:
I find the "water-based" nomenclature to be misleading because it's actually glycol that is the active ingredient. Like the stuff they use in anti-freeze. Apparently there have been problems with people actually using antifreeze in their smoke machines, so the industry supposedly came up with the term "water-based" to prevent this. That's the story, anyway. I'm more inclined to think that the industry just doesn't want people to know that they are breathing-in glycol-- it sounds so much healthier and natural to say "water-based" than to say "glycol-based," after all.

But here's the thing I've noticed-- I can't think of a single band I've seen live that used it. Not even back in the 80's when I was going to see heavy metal bands. If so many great shows can be pulled off without it then why are we soaking in glycol??
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, in the early 90s, before the smoking bans really took off, most clubs didn't need smoke machines, the audience provided the smoke effect for free! Mostly tobacco smoke, some other more questionable substances too I am sure...
 
#66
[skyraider] said:
I find the "water-based" nomenclature to be misleading because it's actually glycol that is the active ingredient. Like the stuff they use in anti-freeze. Apparently there have been problems with people actually using antifreeze in their smoke machines, so the industry supposedly came up with the term "water-based" to prevent this. That's the story, anyway. I'm more inclined to think that the industry just doesn't want people to know that they are breathing-in glycol-- it sounds so much healthier and natural to say "water-based" than to say "glycol-based," after all.

But here's the thing I've noticed-- I can't think of a single band I've seen live that used it. Not even back in the 80's when I was going to see heavy metal bands. If so many great shows can be pulled off without it then why are we soaking in glycol??
Click to expand...

Good points about the glycol. I guess nothing's perfect. All I know is I was in a band that used it and it was far less intrusive and irritating, much more easily tolerated by my respiratory sensitivities. Also, it doesn't appear to accumulate in gear and clothes like the old school fog.
 
#67
[skyraider] said:
I find the "water-based" nomenclature to be misleading because it's actually glycol that is the active ingredient. Like the stuff they use in anti-freeze. Apparently there have been problems with people actually using antifreeze in their smoke machines, so the industry supposedly came up with the term "water-based" to prevent this. That's the story, anyway. I'm more inclined to think that the industry just doesn't want people to know that they are breathing-in glycol-- it sounds so much healthier and natural to say "water-based" than to say "glycol-based," after all.

But here's the thing I've noticed-- I can't think of a single band I've seen live that used it. Not even back in the 80's when I was going to see heavy metal bands. If so many great shows can be pulled off without it then why are we soaking in glycol??
Click to expand...

The Reel EFX DF50 uses petroleum based white mineral oil. The oil itself is labeled as non-toxic. You can drink the stuff and the worst it will do is give you diarrhea. The Safety Data Sheet says it causes similar bronchial symptoms if exposure is extreme, but you really can't fog a place up with a DF-50, so it's the wrong tool if you want a thick haze.

However, if your goal is for your lights to cast stronger edges and to minimize bronchial irritation, the DF-50 or similar oil-based hazer might be a good choice. If the device is used repeatedly in the same venue, an oily residue will build up over time. No free lunch. They also tend to be a bit noisy.

The glycol-based haze doesn't really seem to enhance the look of the lights much unless the haze is bordering on a fog. The oil-based haze seems to be much more effective at catching/refracting the light beams at low haze levels.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have never experienced any symptoms when I was exposed to DF50 haze. The thick haze my tech guys produced with our glycol-based hazers frequently gives me a headache and bronchial symptoms, and they spent extra to buy high-end fluid that was supposedly hypo-allergenic.
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: [skyraider]
#69
#70
Yes, I know. So is that like the difference between inhaling regular unleaded gasoline versus diesel? The difference between breathing 2-stroke motor oil and 4-stroke motor oil? Maybe I won't die as fast?

I see a distinction without a difference, here.
 
#73
"Back in the day", as they say, when I was working lighting for shows for a sound company, we did a show with Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels. We had all of the moving lights, that were fairly new at the time. Since we had them, we needed fog to make them show. They weren't very bright at the time, so the more fog the better. But the drummer for the band told us that Mitch hated fog, so dont use any. We were like, "oh well, ok, he's the boss" and so I just went over and unhooked the power cord from the outlet. About two songs in the drummer looks at me and says "turn off the fog machine!". I told him it was off. A couple of songs later he yells at me "I said turn off the $(&^%%*&^%$ FOG MACHINE!". I walked over to it and held the whole thing up in the air with the cord dangling. He looked at me with this puzzled look and said "Where's the smoke coming from?" I said I didnt know but would figure it out.

It was the power distro. It was on fire.

BnB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbo and Mr_Moo

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back