Marcus Miller signature strings...need opinions

[AmplifyYourBass]

So I'm getting pretty interested in these Marcus Miller signature strings (fat beams, I believe they're called). I haven't played them...hell I haven't even heard them in person, but for those that have, how do they sound? But more importantly (for me), how do they compare to the DR High Beam Stainless Steel? Better? Worse? Depends on...?

[carl-anton]

The "fatter, deeper and smoother" tag pretty much says it all. More bass and midrange and sweeter top than Hi-Beams. Not as flexible but still that special roundcore feel. Good strings.

[AmplifyYourBass]

Originally Posted by carl-anton

The "fatter, deeper and smoother" tag pretty much says it all. More bass and midrange and sweeter top than Hi-Beams. Not as flexible but still that special roundcore feel. Good strings.

So would you reccomend them over the Hi-Beams? Ever since I was reccomended the Hi-Beams, I haven't strayed from playing those strings at all. I love them. But these Marcus Miller strings have really captured my attention, but I want to know whether they should be reccomended over the Hi-Beams.

[carl-anton]

That's totally a personal preference question. The fat-beams seems to have a more prominent and tighter bottom whereas the hi-beams seems softer and slightly warmer in the lo-end. Mids are more present and full with fat-beams, and slightly hollow with hi-beams. Highs are fuller and more musical with hi-beams than with fat-beams. So, what do you want? Interestingly Marcus Miller still prefers hi-beams on his main bass (the 70's jazz). I think it's because of the playabillity (fat-beams are stiffer and more 'conventionally' feeling), and the upper midrange that's more hollow/vocal like with the hi-beams.

What do you like/miss with hi-beams?

[AmplifyYourBass]

Originally Posted by carl-anton

That's totally a personal preference question. The fat-beams seems to have a more prominent and tighter bottom whereas the hi-beams seems softer and slightly warmer in the lo-end. Mids are more present and full with fat-beams, and slightly hollow with hi-beams. Highs are fuller and more musical with hi-beams than with fat-beams. So, what do you want? Interestingly Marcus Miller still prefers hi-beams on his main bass (the 70's jazz). I think it's because of the playabillity (fat-beams are stiffer and more 'conventionally' feeling), and the upper midrange that's more hollow/vocal like with the hi-beams.

What do you like/miss with hi-beams?

Well from what you just told me, it sounds like I'm better off sticking with my hi-beams (out of preference). I'm still going to give the fat beams a go, but I doubt I'll use them much.

[EricTheEZ1]

There's very, very little difference between them. I did notice a smoothness with them that was there when they were brand new (rare) and remains quite constant. Hi-Beams are a little less forgiving when brand new. I went from Hi-Beam heavies (50-110) to Fat Beams (45-105) because they've stopped ordering Hi-Beam heavies at my guitar shop. I didn't notice any lack in booty or even in playability. I never really noticed any extra warmth in the high-end with Hi-Beams like the previous person said. In fact, I think the Fat Beams are much warmer in the high end.

DR Stainless Steel Strings are the best of the best. No matter how long I keep strings on, they always have great tone.

-Eric.

P.S. - Man, I wish I could get a sponsorship deal with them. *Dreams of fresh DR strings every other week.*

[carl-anton]

Eric, I think you misunderstood me. I too think fat-beams are warmer in the highs. It was the low end of the hi-beams I referred to as warmer or softer. I have only tried 45-125 gauges, so I don't know what 50-110 hi-beams might sound like, but I would suspect, like you seem to think too, that 50-110 hi-beams would sound a lot like 45-105 fat-beams. Meaning that thinner hi-beams (45-105) sounds thinner than equally gauged fat-beams.