Curious what Wirecutter would have to say about this. I use them for a lot of my purchases if I don't know where to start and it does seem like some rare times they just miss the mark, though not so egregiously as this. Why stand on something that seems so widely disliked?
Last time I read the Wirecutter review, they only looked at the wick style of humidifier. The stated reason for this was the propensity for steam and ultrasonic humidifiers to over-humidify. It's entirely possible that the Honeywell is the easiest to clean and most quiet of this type of humidifier.
[edit] Direct quotes from the Wirecutter post (emphasis added by me):
> We recommend the Honeywell HCM-350 Germ Free Cool Mist Humidifier because it’s quieter, more durable, and easier to clean than any other evaporative humidifier we’ve tested, with a 1-gallon tank that will last all day.
> ...In general, we prefer evaporative humidifiers because we find them less messy and less likely to over-humidify a space; however, you will need to replace the wicking filter on a semi-regular basis, and the fans might not be the best option for people who have pets or particularly dusty homes. The best one for you will be whichever one you’re actually willing to deal with and maintain.
There are ultrasonic humidifiers, at the same price point, that have humidity meters built in so they don't over humidify. It's completely dishonest for wirecutter to claim that the entire category over-humidifies. It's just not true.
Ultrasonic just sprays all the disolved minerals across your room. You won't notice it at first, but about 2 or 3 weeks into using the device, you'll find plenty of "white dust" all over your room.
In my experience, you get a smelly bacteria-infested humidifier if you keep using it for a few days. You need to regularly rinse ultrasonic humidifiers... or really any humidifier at all.
So, I have one of these running in my room right now (and have for the whole winter thus far). No white dust. That said, I don't run it at full power, I keep it where I can barely see any mist coming out.
It humidifies the room quite nicely, keeping it at about 40% humidity (our house averages 25% without humidifiers running, which is hell on skin and noses).
Maybe my tap water has more minerals than your tap water. A good bit of slag builds up in my warm-air humidifier, and the white-dust was noticeable after a few weeks of ultrasonic.
Warm-air humidifiers are less efficient: My room is ~25% without any devices running. An ultrasonic would bring it up to 35%+, but Warm-air humidifier only brings it up to 32% or so.
Another efficiency test: both units were 1-quart (EDIT: Not a gallon) units. The warm-air humidifier probably goes through the tank in ~12 hours, while the ultrasonic would go through in ~8.
> Maybe my tap water has more minerals than your tap water
Unlikely; my tap water is well water. I do clean the humidifier with vinegar every week to keep the mineral buildup down. Then again, I do that with the shower head and tea kettle too (though a bit less frequently).
The big thing, as I've found it, is keeping the output down to a visible minimum. A big plume of mist that visibly lands anywhere isn't adding more water to the air - it's putting water droplets on the surface much like a spray bottle. It looks good, but isn't doing the job you're asking it to.
Then it is probably a difference in ultrasonic humidifiers. I can tell you that mine barely builds up much slag at all. I switched to warm-air after I grew tired of the white-dust issue.
The white-dust issue is further confirmed as I use the warm-air (boiling-type) humidifier. A LOT of minerals are found every day from my boiled-away tap-water... minerals that clearly used to be sprayed into the air and dusting my furniture.
It's expensive, but distilled water will fix that. Cheaper is filling it up from an RO filter (not as low in minerals as distilled, but probably "good enough")
I definitely think they need to revise that copy. The article actually has a recommendation now for an ultrasonic with an accurate hygrometer that wasn't there when I first read the article ~9 years ago.
Affiliate revenue. The same reason they recommend all the other products on their site. It's advertising disguised as product reviews. You are a sucker if you believe anything an Amazon affiliate is telling you.
I have found their reviews very extensive, more than any other free alternative that covers so many product categories, and typically they match what you get if you purchase one of the products. You'd think having NYT behind them would lend some legitimacy, at least as far as it concerns outright fabrications. Typically I don't mind if their recommendations are sourced from just a handful of retailers in that case.
There are a dozen other humidifiers they can earn affiliate money through.
I have a low-end "Victsing" model and it works just fine (as evidenced by the hygrometer next to it), and isn't hard to clean. It isn't a complicated device to make.
I typically have good experiences as well, but sometimes I know of an alternative that's very popular - when I go to check the "Competition" section it's almost always missing.
