APS, APX, V0 and V2 - what's the deal?

I've been doing quite a lot of reading on this topic lately, and have emerged both enlightened and confused. Would anyone be able to clear up the following?

• APX > APS for quality, yet APS is preferred. Is this due to size?
• "--preset fast extreme" is apparently of inferior quality to "--preset extreme", yet is the one that is recommended. Is this due to efficiency? Is the difference negligible or outranked by the faster speed?
• On that note, does putting only "--alt-preset extreme" result in proper rips in EAC?
• If yes, then I've been told that "V0 --vbr-new" and "V2 --vbr-new" are actually superior to "--alt-preset extreme" and "--alt-preset standard", yet audiophiles continue to insist on APS and APX. What's the deal?
• Why is 320 CBR supposedly of the highest quality?

In addition to this, if anyone has any crash-course FAQs on MP3s, bit rates, quality, what all of the EAC commands actually mean (rather than just mindlessly following instructions on how to rip CDs), etc., that would be equally as awesome. Thanks in advance!

EDIT: Also, are copied CDs of lower quality? For example, borrowing a CD from a friend, burning it with the CD back-up function in Nero and returning the original and keeping the burnt copy for yourself. Are the EAC rips of the copied CD significantly worse off?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

APS is recommended cause its the most optimal for size/quality. APX nudges on the side of quality, quality that the majority wouldn't hear, so the recommended is APS.

I never saw fast extreme being ever recommended. Outside of lame 3.97b2 of course, but they dont even use the preset system there, they just put in the equalents of them in the new system in a comparison lists.

If you want "proper" rips in EAC, use the lossless guide in this forum... For mp3 quality, use whatever you find to be the best for your needs.

The -V system is used by the newest recommended version of Lame (3.97b2) which does not use presets. So its better because its a better encoder not because its a better commandline.
On that note, --vbr-new invokes a different, faster encoding algorythm, which in some cases MAY be worse quality then regular Vx, but for the vast majority it is actually superior. Oh, and its also much faster too. It is similar to the alt preset fast standard/extreme thing, just better.

320cbr is the highest quality because, obviously, you are forcing the most possible bits there is for encoding. So naturally you will squeeze more quality in when you have more space to use.

For faqs, a list of all the options is included in the helpfile that comes with Lame, and a list of recommended encoding options is present at Hydrogenaudios mp3 section. For ripping, Moguta still has his guide here, doesnt he?

Copied cds: not counting the lack of offset correction (which should only add milliseconds of difference anyway), the only downside for Nero is that it may not use secure ripping function. This means that it justs reads in the disc once and gets done with it. It won't notice ripping differences. Also, I'm not sure if it will copy track pregaps, but someone needs to check that.
If you want to make truly 1:1 copies, you can read the lossless guide which explains every detail from offset correction to detecting pregaps in a cd and such. Of course, ripping that way is significantly slower, but it produces bit-exact result for sure.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by evilboris

320cbr is the highest quality because, obviously, you are forcing the most possible bits there is for encoding. So naturally you will squeeze more quality in when you have more space to use.

The only downside to this is the fact that files can get absurdly large. So if you want high quality and a decent filesize, use VBR, even though it doesn't give the absolute best quality like 320CBR does.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

And besides, who ever can hear the difference between -V 0 --vbr-new and 320k cbr anyway.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by evilboris

And besides, who ever can hear the difference between -V 0 --vbr-new and 320k cbr anyway.

Exactly, anyone who uses 320kbps for archival purposes is a moron (to put it lightly), as -V 0 sounds almost exactly the same. In fact you run into some of the mp3's limitations after -V 2 (since mp3s have problems with sound above 16kHz). Even -V 5 is fine for most people, but -V 0 is the highest you should ever need to use (above that use Ogg, AAC or go lossless).

How ya doing, buddy?

I thought Ogg was better at lower bitrates and not as good at higher ones. AAC I believed to be the same as Ogg, but having less audible artifacts.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by neothe0ne

I thought Ogg was better at lower bitrates and not as good at higher ones. AAC I believed to be the same as Ogg, but having less audible artifacts.

From what I've read, OGG is excellent at all bitrates below 128kbps, (it's considered the best lossy codec at the 128kbps midrange area) and only second to AAC at very low bitrates. Almost any (newer) lossy codec does better than MP3 at 192kbps or higher since MP3 can't handle 16kHz or higher frequencies very well.

How ya doing, buddy?