Pax 2

# Pax 2

Overview

The Pax 2 is a portable dry herb vaporizer manufactured by PAX Labs (formerly Ploom), released in 2015 as the successor to the original Pax. It uses conduction heating and is powered by an internal rechargeable lithium-ion battery. The Pax 2 was widely recognized in the vaporizer community for its sleek, minimalist industrial design, exceptional portability, and stealth factor. It quickly became one of the most popular and recognizable portable vaporizers on the market, often compared to the "iPhone of vaporizers" in mainstream coverage.

The device features a simple, pocket-friendly form factor with no protruding mouthpiece or stems, an anodized aluminum shell, and LED indicator lights (the "petal" display) for temperature and status feedback. It charges via a magnetic USB dock and features lip-sensing technology that activates heating when the user draws on the mouthpiece.

Specifications

Community Reception

The community's reception of the Pax 2 was mixed but generally respectful of its niche. The device was widely acknowledged as the gold standard for stealth and portability — its slim profile meant users "barely notice it in your pocket," as one community member noted, and its discreet appearance made it suitable for use in situations where drawing attention was undesirable, such as in a car.

Pros frequently cited by the community:

• Exceptional portability and stealth: The Pax 2's size and form factor were consistently praised. It was one of the most pocketable vaporizers available.
• Ease of use: Simple single-button operation with four temperature presets made it approachable for newcomers.
• Cloud production: Community members noted the Pax 2 could "produce clouds" and deliver satisfying visible vapor, particularly at higher temperature settings.
• Good taste on early hits: Flavor was described as "good taste for the first few hits" when the device was kept reasonably clean.
• Lip-sensing and auto-standby: The device would stop heating when set down, which helped conserve herb and battery life. One member noted, "it will stop heating when it's set down so you don't roast your herb unintentionally."
• Pre-loadable oven: Users appreciated the ability to pre-load the oven and carry the device ready-to-go without a separate container.
• 10-year warranty: The lengthy manufacturer warranty provided peace of mind.

Cons frequently cited by the community:

• Maintenance demands: The most commonly voiced criticism was that the Pax 2 required frequent and thorough cleaning to maintain proper function. The mouthpiece mechanism in particular was prone to becoming sticky with resin, affecting draw quality and the lip-sensing feature. This was a dealbreaker for some prospective buyers.
• Conduction heating trade-offs: As a conduction-based session vaporizer, the Pax 2 continued to heat herb between draws, leading to some waste. This was a concern for efficiency-minded users.
• Taste degradation: While initial hits were flavorful, taste quality dropped off noticeably as the session progressed, a common characteristic of conduction vaporizers.
• Not ideal for small amounts: Users who preferred to take just "a few hits at a time" found the Pax 2 less efficient than on-demand alternatives, as the full oven design encouraged packing larger amounts.
• Price relative to performance: Some community members felt the Pax 2 was overpriced for its vapor quality compared to competitors, and that a significant portion of the cost went toward design and brand cachet rather than vapor performance.
• Aftermarket accessories often considered necessary: Multiple members noted that the Pax 2 experience improved significantly with third-party accessories (such as the NewVape Pax-Pusher and 3D screen), suggesting the stock configuration was not optimized.

One member summarized a common sentiment: after acquiring a VapCap, their Pax 2 "lies dormant as a backup vape," despite having initially enjoyed using it. Another community member reviewing options for purchase advice noted that the Pax 2 "needed additional accessories" to perform at its best.

In comparison threads, the Pax 2 was rarely the community's first recommendation for vapor quality or efficiency but was frequently acknowledged as the best option when stealth and pocketability were the primary requirements. Some community members noted that reviews claiming the Pax 2 was "all around better than the III model" existed, though this was not universally agreed upon.

Tips & Techniques

The community developed several techniques to optimize the Pax 2 experience:

• Fine grind: A fine, consistent grind was considered essential for optimal vapor production from the conduction oven. Coarse grinds led to uneven extraction and weak hits.
• Firm pack: The oven performed best when packed firmly but not overly tight. A snug pack ensured good contact between the herb and the oven walls, critical for conduction heating.
• Half-pack technique: For smaller sessions, users employed a half-pack lid or pusher accessory (see Accessories section) to reduce the effective oven size while maintaining the firm pack necessary for good conduction contact.
• Sip draw technique: Long, slow, gentle draws (often described as "sipping") produced the best results. Hard, fast draws cooled the oven too quickly and produced thin vapor.
• Temperature stepping: Starting a session at the lowest temperature setting and gradually increasing through the presets as the session progressed was a common technique to maximize both flavor and extraction.
• Pre-loadable oven for on-the-go: One member recommended pre-loading the oven before leaving home, eliminating the need to carry a separate herb container.
• ABV collection: Community members saved their ABV (Already Been Vaped) material from the Pax 2 for edible use. One member reported using approximately 1 gram of Pax ABV (vaped on the high heat setting) mixed into ice cream for effective edible consumption, noting onset in about an hour. Another user observed they tended to vape their Pax material darker than their Volcano material, suggesting the Pax's conduction heating more thoroughly extracted the herb.

Temperature Guide

The Pax 2 features four preset temperature levels:

The community generally agreed that temperature stepping — starting at setting 1 or 2 and gradually increasing — was the optimal approach, providing a full spectrum of flavor and effects from a single oven pack. For users primarily seeking cloud production, starting at setting 3 was common.

Maintenance & Cleaning

Cleaning was arguably the most discussed aspect of Pax 2 ownership within the community. The device was widely regarded as high-maintenance, and keeping it clean was considered essential not only for vapor quality but for basic functionality.

• Cleaning frequency: Regular users (daily, multiple times per day) were advised to clean at minimum weekly, with some members recommending every few sessions for optimal performance.
• Mouthpiece path: The mouthpiece mechanism and internal vapor path were the primary areas requiring attention. Resin buildup in the mouthpiece channel could cause the mouthpiece to stick, affect the lip-sensing feature, and increase draw resistance.
• Recommended method: Pipe cleaners dipped in isopropyl alcohol (90% or higher) were the standard tool for cleaning the vapor path. The oven could be swabbed with an alcohol-soaked cotton swab after each session while still slightly warm.
• Screen cleaning or replacement: The oven screen accumulated resin and particulate matter and required periodic soaking in isopropyl alcohol or replacement.
• Exterior: The anodized aluminum body could be wiped down with isopropyl alcohol, though users were advised to avoid excessive soaking of the exterior to protect the finish.

One original poster explicitly cited "the constant cleaning in order for it to work properly" as a concern that gave them pause about purchasing the device. This sentiment was echoed frequently throughout community discussions and was one of the primary criticisms leveled at the Pax line.

Common Issues & Fixes

Accessories & Modifications

The community widely agreed that the Pax 2 experience could be significantly improved with aftermarket accessories:

• NewVape Pax-Pusher: A spring-loaded oven insert that maintained constant pressure on the herb, ensuring good conduction contact throughout a session even as the material shrank. This effectively created a half-pack option and improved extraction efficiency. Frequently mentioned as a near-essential upgrade.
• NewVape 3D Screen: A raised oven screen that improved airflow and reduced draw resistance compared to the stock flat screen. Community members reported improved vapor quality with this screen.
• Ratchett SONG: Mentioned as a compatible accessory in classified listings, though specific details were less commonly discussed in the available threads.
• Half-pack oven lid: An aftermarket or DIY solution for reducing the effective oven size for users who preferred smaller loads.
• Water pipe adapter (WPA): Various third-party WPAs were available to connect the Pax 2 to water pieces, which cooled the vapor and allowed for larger draws.

One community member specifically noted that "things improved with a bunch of NewVape accessories like the Pax-Pusher and 3D screen," underscoring the community perception that the stock Pax 2 configuration benefited substantially from modification.

Comparisons

The Pax 2 was frequently compared to other portable vaporizers in community purchase-advice discussions:

Pax 2 vs. Arizer Solo / Air

This was one of the most common comparison points. The Arizer line was generally favored by the community for vapor quality, taste, and ease of maintenance, while the Pax 2 won on portability and stealth. The Solo's glass stem, while excellent for flavor, made it far less discreet and pocket-friendly. One community member noted the Solo offered roughly "6x the autonomy" (battery life) compared to some competitors. For users who prioritized taste and didn't need maximum stealth, the Arizer products were more frequently recommended.

Pax 2 vs. Pax 3

Community opinion was divided. Some members reported that "the Pax II was all around better than the III model," though this was not a universal consensus. The Pax 3 added app control, a half-pack lid, and concentrate capability, but some users felt the core vaping experience was not meaningfully improved.

Pax 2 vs. DynaVap VapCap

The VapCap was frequently cited as a device that rendered the Pax 2 redundant for many users. The butane-powered VapCap offered superior cloud production, better efficiency with small amounts, on-demand heating, and much lower cost. One member stated they got "100%" better clouds from a VapCap than a Pax 2 when vaping small amounts. The primary disadvantage of the VapCap was its requirement for a torch lighter, which could be impractical in some situations (e.g., airport confiscation, difficulty sourcing butane in some regions).

Pax 2 vs. Firefly / Firefly 2

The Firefly line was generally regarded as superior for taste, as it used convection/on-demand heating. However, the Firefly was more expensive and had a steeper learning curve. One community member considering leaving a vaporizer for a friend overseas opted against the Firefly 2 due to its high replacement cost.

Pax 2 vs. Boundless CF

For budget-conscious buyers, the Boundless CF was frequently recommended over the Pax 2 as offering comparable or better vapor quality at a significantly lower price point. One member noted the Boundless was "cheaper than the pax (which for me needed additional accessories)."

Pax 2 vs. DaVinci IQ

Both were premium conduction portables with app features (IQ) or sleek design (Pax 2). Direct comparisons in the available threads were limited, though both appeared in the same purchase-advice discussions without a clear community consensus favoring one over the other.

Pax 2 vs. Mighty

When budget was not a concern, the Storz & Bickel Mighty was nearly always the community's preferred recommendation over the Pax 2 for vapor quality and overall performance, though it sacrificed the Pax 2's stealth advantage due to its considerably larger size.

---

This article is based on community discussions spanning approximately 2014–2018 from a popular vaporizer enthusiast forum. Community opinions reflect the consensus and debates of that era; newer hardware revisions or accessories may have addressed some noted shortcomings.