Searching through some music that I haven't heard in ages I start to download, and use EncSpot to check the quality of the rip.

So the question I ponder is would a 160/192k Xing (old or new) mp3 have better quality than a 128k FhG or Lame? Theoretically the Xing would be because of the higher samples, but is that so?

Opinions? Facts?

The mainly problem here it isn't the less bitrate of the FhG enconded song vs Xing.

The problem is that Xing codec has a really bad implemented psymodel that only cares about speed, and it has many flaw in its design. This means problems with the encoded music independently of the bitrate .

For example Xing doesn't use short blocks with the problems associated with the no use of this technique, doesn't matter the bitrate you use.

Do you have to remember that FhG and Lame are good implementations of a mp3 encoder and really fine tuned, (Lame with alt-presets).

Hence, a FhG or Lame could result in higher quality than the same Xing mp3 no matter what bitrate due the inherent faults in the Xing encoder.

Forget Xing¡

Gimme lame/fhg 128 over xing 192 anyday, to put it simple : using many bits doesn't make it sound good, using bits wisely and thoughtfull does.
Lame = not so fast smart highest quality mp3 encoder
xing = fast dumb poor quality mp3 encoder

take your pick

What has been said about xing is true, but I find that it is best to listen to the files to decide.

For instance I wish I had never even heard of the fastenc stereo collapse bug. This is just as annoying to me as the flanging of a blade 128 file. It is an absolute abx 100% of the time flaw, especially if you listen on headphones.

I am finding quite a few older Lame 128 files encoded in simple stereo that frankly are not as good as xing 192's .overall .

If you are talking about rare downloads, I download them all and listen carefully then pick the one that is the least annoying.

Hope this helps.

If it was FhG ACM, I'd take it over any Xing, any day.