Talk:VisualOn

Multiple Issues, January 2015

I've just recently added the AAC encoder information. The AAC encoder in Android turned out to be a copy of some reference code that the company may or may not have had license to use, or used improperly, and so it was replaced by the FDK codec. I don't know anything else about this company and I have no idea what it actually makes or sells, and the article does not explain that at all. It's just some PR fluff. --Bp0 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

AAC encoder removal and restoration

An editor removed the aac encoder information and I have restored it. All of the information is relevant and referenced. It may be unfavorable but it is accurate. There's no slander or bias, just an account of the inclusion and later removal of VisualOn's AAC encoder in Android. --Bp0 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BP0,

There seems to be a bias in your edits. Let me explain.

>>On January 4th you state that you added the AAC encoder information. The AAC encoder in Android turned out to be a copy of some reference code that the >>company may or may not have had license to use, or used improperly, and so it was replaced by the FDK codec.

1. 1: How do you validate your comment that about the license or "copy of some reference code"? Is that based reference(3)'s opinion? In fact that same reference seems to indicate the validity of the implementation". Have you validated with Google/Android directly? Google's legal counsels would be the ultimate authority on this topic? Would you change your mind on this if their code was still part of Android?

AAC encoder removal and restoration[edit] An editor removed the aac encoder information and I have restored it. All of the information is relevant and referenced. It may be unfavorable but it is accurate. There's no slander or bias, just an account of the inclusion and later removal of VisualOn's AAC encoder in Android. --Bp0 (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

To make the above statement - Have you checked the latest Android master repository of the Android source? You should check that before you make the comment that it has been removed. Are you relying entirely on reference(4)? I implore you to check it, if not you are relying on potential improper information from reference (4).

You say >>I don't know anything else about this company and I have no idea what it actually makes or sells, and the article does not explain that at all. It's just some PR fluff. -->>Bp0 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Streaming media terms such as workflow interoperability is not a buzzword.

In the article you have edited the following statement in: >>The VisualOn AAC encoder has been shown to be very low quality in ABX testing.[8] Of the four AAC encoders that can be used by FFmpeg, it is the least recommended option.

It also seems that you have given legitimacy to some random person doing some testing on some version of a software. How do you know this test is legitimate. Did you validate it with Google? In fact your reference(9) seems to cite reference(8) - so you are basing your sentence of "least recommended option" based on the test which is in question. Have you validated that all the tests done by 8 is correct and appropriate and not biased? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Citing a reference because it exists on the internet is not legitimate unless you strive to validate the reference.

-D1forwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1forwiki (talk • contribs) 03:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First, my talk page comments are just my comments, a short summary of my understanding of what I had found and they don't really need references. I was looking into AAC encoders for my own uses and so I had collected a lot of information about the available options and was trying to contribute it in a way that would be useful if someone else came along looking for the same. I filled in information on Nero AAC Codec and Fraunhofer FDK AAC as well. I don't work for any related company.

Moving on then, the ABX testing is done by a community of people at hydrogen audio who regularly do this kind of thing. Many of them are audio software developers or audio engineers. The inventor of ABX testing is a member of the forum. The VisualOn AAC encoder is known among them to be of low quality. It is also a technically very limited encoder (it only supports mono and stereo for example), and inefficient (read the forum thread about it). About the AAC encoder being derived from the 3GPP reference encoder, there has been analysis of the source code. Yes, the VisualOn encoder was removed from the Android source release at 4.1, and is not there going forward... at least it is not in the same place. I implore you to find it for me if you think I am mistaken. You may notice that when I referenced the source code I had to link an old release.

Anyway, If you work for VisualOn, perhaps you could fill in some information given in the article. For example, how does VisualOn calculate that 8 of 10 devices include its technology? What technology is that exactly? What devices are those? That kind of thing. Cheers. --Bp0 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Visualon products are listed. VisualOn does not market or sell any encoder products today. But checking the latest Android source, it seems it still contains the encoder component https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/av/+/android-5.1.0_r3/media/libstagefright/codecs/aacenc/src/, The sentence that it was removed in preference to Fraunhofer would be incorrect.Ebaebw (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It does, and in the exact same path. I don't know how I missed that. I really did look for it. Thanks for trying to clean this up? Do you work for VisualOn? I have some more questions about the AAC encoder. --Bp0 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

BP0 RE: your statement "Visualon website lists software codecs....". There are differences between "Encoders" and "Decoders". Software can be used to accomplish both these tasks. Visualon does not sell/market software encoders which is what your issues is about. VisualOn sells/markets software decoders. http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=23043 http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=24041) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaebw (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I've reverted a recent poorly sourced edit accompanied by unhelpful edit comment. Any subsequent edits that were inadvertently lost in the process, feel free to add back in, if compliant with policies etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)