As I said, that software does exist. However I don't think many DJs agree that it is 'better'. The vast majority of 'creative' DJs who are beat mixing, scratching and generally doing clever things with recorded dance music are using records. I don't think it's just about familiarity, the reality is that the analogue 'instrument' of turntable + tonearm + stylus + vinyl record is very difficult to model digitally, just as an acoustic/electric guitar is. There are guitar-ish digital instruments, but the majority of people who want to play guitar, play a real guitar. The majority of creative DJs use a real record deck with a real record.
I guess your point is that the wikipaedia article says that it's different from compression. But I did not ridicule the parent, only pointed out his error. Even if I had ridiculed him, that would not be ironic, it would be hypocritical. To refer you back to wikipedia, I think you need to look at the definition of ironic.
You are obviously trying to apply the experience and skills of one area (one you have) to another (which you don't.) Recording is not analogous to database design. "Digitally normalise". To the fourth digitally normal form, right? M'kay.
Normalisation is a fairly standard thing to do with a digital audio file. See here about two-thirds of the way down the page. 'Normalise' is a standard plugin in most audio software. I can't decide whether you're trolling or not, but if you're not you should at least Google before ridiculing someone.
By the way, digital normalisation is a kind of post-production compression where the peaks at each part of the signal are set to just below digital maximum. It's one of the most extreme forms of loudness maximisation.
It's as simple this - digital subsumes vinyl. In other words it can do anything vinyl can and more.
I know I'm changing tack slightly, but that's not actually true. The one this that a vinyl record can do, that no digital format can, is show graphically and instantly the track layout and 'density' of music at any point on a recording. This is particularly true with wide-grooved 45rpm 12" singles. I know there are numerous 'digital DJ' setups that attempt to do this, but for most DJs there is nothing that replaces the hands-on approach to vinyl.
I'm pretty sure this is what FON does - well, not unencrypted externally, but tunneled so that it doesn't affect your home system. You can then connect to anyone else with a FON access point for free.
If it falls under fair use, then it IS copyright infringment by definition.
That's utter rubbish and exactly the kind of thinking that muddies the whole debate. Fair use is a recognised exception of copyright law, under which the law does not apply. If I am making a copy of a work I purchased, protected under copyright law, for my own personal use then copyright has nothing to say about my actions, I am not 'infringing' anything. What you're saying is a bit like saying "if you lend me your lawnmower it's actually theft but not illigal theft because you gave me permission".
My sentiments exactly. It also smacks of voyeurism to me. Maybe that is part of the appeal?
I think there is an element of that for some people. I suppose the flipside of voyeurism is genuine but casual interest. When I see people I was once close to have got married, had kids, got the job I knew they were dreaming of when we were 17 it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. If that sort of thing doesn't bother you then I can see why you wouldn't be interested. Personally I find I don't have the time or perhaps the willingness to stay up to date with the 100 or so people who I have probably been fairly good friends with in the past 15 years, but Facebook makes it easy enough to be fun again.
Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.
But there are different categories of answers. Think about this question: 'I made my wife a cup of tea. Explain'. What reasonable answers are there?
boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea)
my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death
it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people
I love her
You could analyse any occurance in a similar way, and I'm sure there are hundreds of other categories in which the question could be answered. All of those answers are correct, but none of them is complete.
In most situations that actually matter to people, the purely scientific answer is usually the least satisfying: 'your father died because he lost most of his blood volume' is far less acceptable than 'your father was a hero, he died in the line of duty, serving his country, under enemy fire', but which is scientifically 'correct'? Is nationality a scientific 'fact'? What is a 'hero'? The second statement is highly subjective but far more relevant than the former.
What you assert is in direct contradiction to mainstram cosmology, which holds that the universe is expanding, started with a singularity at the 'big bang' and therefore did have a beginning.
Your experience isn't knowledge. Your experience isn't even necessarily real.
Well, all 'knowledge' is based on experience. How do I know that any datum within the body of accepted scientific knowledge is 'real', how do I know that the computer I'm sitting in front of is 'real'? All scientific experiment relies on the recorded experiences of human individuals - there is not such thing as true objectivity - so by your reasoning we could never debate anything and never draw a conclusion.
I created a fake account... I don't have any long lost friends to look up, and the couple of names I did plug in didn't get any hits.
Hmmm... well, if you used a fake name, then maybe all your former friends did too. The site only works if people use their real names. Facebook is exactly that for most people - kind of like classmates.com and Friends Reunited. It enables the maintenance of casual friendships without having to write/phone explicitly.
If you think about it, this is how most casual friendships work - I don't specifially talk to John down the hall at work to catch up, I might bump into him in the coffee room, see he's got a new shirt, find out it was his birthday yesterday etc. etc.. Just seeing and bumping into someone lets you stay in touch without it being an effort. Social networking sites let you do this. Email works for people you really want to stay in touch with, and chat forums work for a bunch of people who want to discuss the same topic(s). On Facebook I can find out that Fred who I went to school with is into a particular band too, and if there's a couple of other guys from school 10 years ago maybe a group of us could go to a gig. Nothing serious, nothing important, but if you like to stay loosely in touch with a whole bunch of people then it works really well.
Well... OK, my point (which I didn't put across very well) is that those sort of documents won't work properly anywhere except on the exact revision of the software they were written on. Microsoft has dumped it's customers on this one, but Openoffice.org won't do any worse a job than Office 2007 on a lot of these old documents. I'm actually quite glad MS has done this, because it proves the point about open formats. MS will call their formats 'open' even though the specification isn't specific enough to actually implement independently, because at the moment some of their big customers want hear that it's 'open'. As soon as Microsoft is finished with.docx they will drop it for the next money-maker.
Yeah, but people who use/create that kind of file deserve what they get. It most likely won't open correctly except on the exact version of MS Office (including Service Packs) that it was created on (i.e. other versions of MS Office will struggle just as much as OO.org) and it probably won't print correctly on some printers or convert to PDF cleanly either.
Yeah. This seems to be the solution... the manufacturers themselves take on the task of giving buyers a chance to see and touch stuff, and it essentially comes out of their advertising budget which is ultimately reflected in the unit price -- even if you buy it online.
Well... yes, but you're never going to get around that, at least if you look at a show and buy online you'll get the best price possible. I think I paid 20 UK pounds in total (fuel, parking, ticket) to go to the Stuff show and spent most of the day there. I don't think I quite made my money back in freebies and discounts, but maybe not far off and I had a good day out with the lads. At least at the show the stuff all worked, was connected up etc.. A lot of the time at local shops half the equipment isn't even connected up and working unless it's the item they're trying to shift that day.
Yep, that's exactly what I did. In fact, I spent ages listening to mp3s of different hi-hats and thought I knew the ones I wanted, but when I listened in the shop and actually got to play with them I went for something different. I don't know where you are in the country, but I went to Anderton's Music in Guildford, Surrey. They've got a kit in a fairly-well soundproofed room (DW kit I think), I took all my own cymbals along and played my way through their hi-hats, eventually opting for a K Custom Mastersound. They've also got a really good keyboard/piano room - I would say about 60-80 different instruments from little Korg portables through to digital grands; nothing acoustic though. Total rock shop - my wife asked about flutes on the way out and they directed her to the classical shop up the road.
Ask yourself, as a 'tech-savvy' slashdotter, if you could stand the environment and the low pay of working in a Computer Store.
Right now, no. When I was 16 and even at that time more knowledgeable than most of the salespeople in my local branch, heck yes - would have beat my paper round hands down.
I find people who heavily advocate online dealers like newegg are usually leeching shopping touch it/see it services from local boutiques. Being able to see and touch a product before buying it has value... and its an issue newegg and the like haven't really addressed. While shopping at boutiques and buying online isn't sustainable - if everyone did it, boutiques would disappear.
I base my purchasing choice on 'value added'. If I walk into a shop and they actually know what they're talking about, help me look at different options and come to a reasonable decision about what to buy, then I will happily pay 10-15% on top of the best online price. A good example of this is musicical instrument shops - I went to buy some new cymbals the other week and spent 45 minutes with the shop's drum salesman and came away with a decent set of cymbals. Most high-street computer shops (like PC World in the UK) are staffed by idiots who don't know the difference between FSB speed and on-chip cache, and will answer 'yes' to almost any technical question if they think it will help make a sale. I have no problem at all with going to their store to look at the hardware then buying online.
If the staffed-by-idiots shops disappear, it won't be a problem at all. I went to the Stuff Show a couple of months back and was able to play with all the hardware I wanted, talk with people that know all about it (in some cases the people who designed it) and can happily order from whomever I please.
I'm sure that if the online people drive the bricks-and-mortar shops out of business it will be because the bricks-and-mortar people aren't making the best of the advantage they have - the chance to interact with the customer in person and not just make a sale but build up the kind of trust that encourages repeat business. The way to do that is to have knowledgable people on the shop floor who have a genuine passion for technology and aren't afraid to admit that they don't understand something if necessary. I'm sure there are far more tech geeks around than music geeks, so if the music shops can manage it then the computer shops can too.
It's not a scientific journal parody, the majority of the articles published are genuine research, just research that could be regarded as improbable and amusing, like functional MRI images of people chewing gum. In fact, lots of journals carry light-hearted or off-the-wall research (check out the Christmas edition of the British Medical Journal) but with AIR it's the rule rather than the exception.
They didn't install Flash and don't seem to have a super easy way to install Flash.
They do have a super-easy way to install Flash - the reviewer says "I finally installed Flash with Firefox's built-in plug-in installer..." - this is the installer that offers to find and install the plugins for you when you come across content that it can't display. The reviewer decided - for himself - to go to Adobe's site and look for a download of Flash Player and then complained that it was "intimidating". Guess what - Vista doesn't come with Flash Player installed either, I had to install it myself... using Firefox's plugin finder.
while vista doesnt fare so well and cant run aero without a pretty beefy one
This is a total myth. I'm the last person to be a Microsoft Fanboi (look back at my posting history) but I have Vista with Aero running on a bargain basement notebook (Acer Extensa 5220) and it works perfectly. Sure, it would fly along with XP or Ubuntu and just about chuggs along with Vista, but it is perfectly useable - just like when XP was first installed OEM on low end laptops circa 2002. It's for my mother-in-law by the way.
I've been running Vista for about a fortnight, on the aforementioned laptop for my mum and also on my Dell XPS M1210, and I have to say it's pretty much comparable to OSX. I've used OSX on G3 Powermacs and it's painfully slow but useable if you must have OSX for some reason. On decent hardware OSX flies and is a big improvement on OS9. My nine month old M1210 is pretty much the same spec as the same age Macbook - and would probably run OSX very nicely with the right hack - and Vista absoulely flies along.
Microsoft has every right to complain. They put a stranglehold on a market and got bitchslapped for it. Now, if Google is heading in the same direction (and I'm incline to believe the old adage "one smells one's own", if anyone can recognize a burgeoning monopoly, it's MS), they damn right should receive the same bitchslap. And MS has every right to demand it.
But this is exactly the point, there is no evidence (as yet) that Google has abused its position, whether it is actually a monopoly or not. Microsoft got in trouble because it was using its monopoly position in one marketplace (personal computer operating systems) to stifle competition in that marketplace (e.g. by refusing to supply discounted OS licences to OEM manufacturers who also shipped systems with other OSs, e.g. OS/2) and in other marketplaces, notably web browsers - not only by incorporating their browser with the OS, but again by giving unfavourable deals to OEMs who shipped Netscape on their systems.
If Google does start abusing their power - for instance by giving web sites that use other advertisers lower page ranking - then they should definitely be investigated for monopoly abuse. Currently there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is going on, and all of the markets that Google are involved in appear to be open to competition, even if the competition isn't there.
Thank goodness, someone with some sense. British Cardiology still very much relies on auscultation by an experienced clinician. Anyone requesting an echo or chest X-ray without an indication from physical examination will find their request denied.
I've personally picked up a number of minor heart defects - usually MR - on auscultation when assessing patients pre-operatively, which have then been confirmed by echo. We could echo everyone pre-op but that would be a poor use of resources.
I'm not sure of the point of digitally augmented stethoscopes clinically, but the ones that have recording capability could have uses for teaching.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, that software does exist. However I don't think many DJs agree that it is 'better'. The vast majority of 'creative' DJs who are beat mixing, scratching and generally doing clever things with recorded dance music are using records. I don't think it's just about familiarity, the reality is that the analogue 'instrument' of turntable + tonearm + stylus + vinyl record is very difficult to model digitally, just as an acoustic/electric guitar is. There are guitar-ish digital instruments, but the majority of people who want to play guitar, play a real guitar. The majority of creative DJs use a real record deck with a real record.
I guess your point is that the wikipaedia article says that it's different from compression. But I did not ridicule the parent, only pointed out his error. Even if I had ridiculed him, that would not be ironic, it would be hypocritical. To refer you back to wikipedia, I think you need to look at the definition of ironic.
You are obviously trying to apply the experience and skills of one area (one you have) to another (which you don't.) Recording is not analogous to database design. "Digitally normalise". To the fourth digitally normal form, right? M'kay.
Normalisation is a fairly standard thing to do with a digital audio file. See here about two-thirds of the way down the page. 'Normalise' is a standard plugin in most audio software. I can't decide whether you're trolling or not, but if you're not you should at least Google before ridiculing someone.
By the way, digital normalisation is a kind of post-production compression where the peaks at each part of the signal are set to just below digital maximum. It's one of the most extreme forms of loudness maximisation.
It's as simple this - digital subsumes vinyl. In other words it can do anything vinyl can and more.
I know I'm changing tack slightly, but that's not actually true. The one this that a vinyl record can do, that no digital format can, is show graphically and instantly the track layout and 'density' of music at any point on a recording. This is particularly true with wide-grooved 45rpm 12" singles. I know there are numerous 'digital DJ' setups that attempt to do this, but for most DJs there is nothing that replaces the hands-on approach to vinyl.
I'm pretty sure this is what FON does - well, not unencrypted externally, but tunneled so that it doesn't affect your home system. You can then connect to anyone else with a FON access point for free.
If it falls under fair use, then it IS copyright infringment by definition.
That's utter rubbish and exactly the kind of thinking that muddies the whole debate. Fair use is a recognised exception of copyright law, under which the law does not apply. If I am making a copy of a work I purchased, protected under copyright law, for my own personal use then copyright has nothing to say about my actions, I am not 'infringing' anything. What you're saying is a bit like saying "if you lend me your lawnmower it's actually theft but not illigal theft because you gave me permission".
My sentiments exactly. It also smacks of voyeurism to me. Maybe that is part of the appeal?
I think there is an element of that for some people. I suppose the flipside of voyeurism is genuine but casual interest. When I see people I was once close to have got married, had kids, got the job I knew they were dreaming of when we were 17 it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. If that sort of thing doesn't bother you then I can see why you wouldn't be interested. Personally I find I don't have the time or perhaps the willingness to stay up to date with the 100 or so people who I have probably been fairly good friends with in the past 15 years, but Facebook makes it easy enough to be fun again.
Yes. The difference is that scientists get their answers, but religion doesn't.
But there are different categories of answers. Think about this question: 'I made my wife a cup of tea. Explain'. What reasonable answers are there?
- boiling water mixed with dried leaves and milk produces a drink (this could be expanded to detail the complicated chemistry of a good cup of tea)
- my wife is thirsty and needs liquids to prevent dehydration, renal failure and eventual death
- it is customary and polite in the UK to offer tea to people
- I love her
You could analyse any occurance in a similar way, and I'm sure there are hundreds of other categories in which the question could be answered. All of those answers are correct, but none of them is complete.In most situations that actually matter to people, the purely scientific answer is usually the least satisfying: 'your father died because he lost most of his blood volume' is far less acceptable than 'your father was a hero, he died in the line of duty, serving his country, under enemy fire', but which is scientifically 'correct'? Is nationality a scientific 'fact'? What is a 'hero'? The second statement is highly subjective but far more relevant than the former.
The universe _is_. It always has been.
What you assert is in direct contradiction to mainstram cosmology, which holds that the universe is expanding, started with a singularity at the 'big bang' and therefore did have a beginning.
Your experience isn't knowledge. Your experience isn't even necessarily real.
Well, all 'knowledge' is based on experience. How do I know that any datum within the body of accepted scientific knowledge is 'real', how do I know that the computer I'm sitting in front of is 'real'? All scientific experiment relies on the recorded experiences of human individuals - there is not such thing as true objectivity - so by your reasoning we could never debate anything and never draw a conclusion.
I'll bite. I know that my wife loves me. It's a matter of fact. Prove that scientifically.
(yes, I'm a Slashdot member, how can I have a wife let alone a girlfriend blah blah blah).
I created a fake account... I don't have any long lost friends to look up, and the couple of names I did plug in didn't get any hits.
Hmmm... well, if you used a fake name, then maybe all your former friends did too. The site only works if people use their real names. Facebook is exactly that for most people - kind of like classmates.com and Friends Reunited. It enables the maintenance of casual friendships without having to write/phone explicitly.
If you think about it, this is how most casual friendships work - I don't specifially talk to John down the hall at work to catch up, I might bump into him in the coffee room, see he's got a new shirt, find out it was his birthday yesterday etc. etc.. Just seeing and bumping into someone lets you stay in touch without it being an effort. Social networking sites let you do this. Email works for people you really want to stay in touch with, and chat forums work for a bunch of people who want to discuss the same topic(s). On Facebook I can find out that Fred who I went to school with is into a particular band too, and if there's a couple of other guys from school 10 years ago maybe a group of us could go to a gig. Nothing serious, nothing important, but if you like to stay loosely in touch with a whole bunch of people then it works really well.
Well... OK, my point (which I didn't put across very well) is that those sort of documents won't work properly anywhere except on the exact revision of the software they were written on. Microsoft has dumped it's customers on this one, but Openoffice.org won't do any worse a job than Office 2007 on a lot of these old documents. I'm actually quite glad MS has done this, because it proves the point about open formats. MS will call their formats 'open' even though the specification isn't specific enough to actually implement independently, because at the moment some of their big customers want hear that it's 'open'. As soon as Microsoft is finished with .docx they will drop it for the next money-maker.
S A N D B O X
It's a well known technique for dealing with buggy old software.
Yeah, but people who use/create that kind of file deserve what they get. It most likely won't open correctly except on the exact version of MS Office (including Service Packs) that it was created on (i.e. other versions of MS Office will struggle just as much as OO.org) and it probably won't print correctly on some printers or convert to PDF cleanly either.
Yeah. This seems to be the solution... the manufacturers themselves take on the task of giving buyers a chance to see and touch stuff, and it essentially comes out of their advertising budget which is ultimately reflected in the unit price -- even if you buy it online.
Well... yes, but you're never going to get around that, at least if you look at a show and buy online you'll get the best price possible. I think I paid 20 UK pounds in total (fuel, parking, ticket) to go to the Stuff show and spent most of the day there. I don't think I quite made my money back in freebies and discounts, but maybe not far off and I had a good day out with the lads. At least at the show the stuff all worked, was connected up etc.. A lot of the time at local shops half the equipment isn't even connected up and working unless it's the item they're trying to shift that day.
Yep, that's exactly what I did. In fact, I spent ages listening to mp3s of different hi-hats and thought I knew the ones I wanted, but when I listened in the shop and actually got to play with them I went for something different. I don't know where you are in the country, but I went to Anderton's Music in Guildford, Surrey. They've got a kit in a fairly-well soundproofed room (DW kit I think), I took all my own cymbals along and played my way through their hi-hats, eventually opting for a K Custom Mastersound. They've also got a really good keyboard/piano room - I would say about 60-80 different instruments from little Korg portables through to digital grands; nothing acoustic though. Total rock shop - my wife asked about flutes on the way out and they directed her to the classical shop up the road.
Ask yourself, as a 'tech-savvy' slashdotter, if you could stand the environment and the low pay of working in a Computer Store.
Right now, no. When I was 16 and even at that time more knowledgeable than most of the salespeople in my local branch, heck yes - would have beat my paper round hands down.
I find people who heavily advocate online dealers like newegg are usually leeching shopping touch it/see it services from local boutiques. Being able to see and touch a product before buying it has value... and its an issue newegg and the like haven't really addressed. While shopping at boutiques and buying online isn't sustainable - if everyone did it, boutiques would disappear.
I base my purchasing choice on 'value added'. If I walk into a shop and they actually know what they're talking about, help me look at different options and come to a reasonable decision about what to buy, then I will happily pay 10-15% on top of the best online price. A good example of this is musicical instrument shops - I went to buy some new cymbals the other week and spent 45 minutes with the shop's drum salesman and came away with a decent set of cymbals. Most high-street computer shops (like PC World in the UK) are staffed by idiots who don't know the difference between FSB speed and on-chip cache, and will answer 'yes' to almost any technical question if they think it will help make a sale. I have no problem at all with going to their store to look at the hardware then buying online.
If the staffed-by-idiots shops disappear, it won't be a problem at all. I went to the Stuff Show a couple of months back and was able to play with all the hardware I wanted, talk with people that know all about it (in some cases the people who designed it) and can happily order from whomever I please.
I'm sure that if the online people drive the bricks-and-mortar shops out of business it will be because the bricks-and-mortar people aren't making the best of the advantage they have - the chance to interact with the customer in person and not just make a sale but build up the kind of trust that encourages repeat business. The way to do that is to have knowledgable people on the shop floor who have a genuine passion for technology and aren't afraid to admit that they don't understand something if necessary. I'm sure there are far more tech geeks around than music geeks, so if the music shops can manage it then the computer shops can too.
It's not a scientific journal parody, the majority of the articles published are genuine research, just research that could be regarded as improbable and amusing, like functional MRI images of people chewing gum. In fact, lots of journals carry light-hearted or off-the-wall research (check out the Christmas edition of the British Medical Journal) but with AIR it's the rule rather than the exception.
They didn't install Flash and don't seem to have a super easy way to install Flash.
They do have a super-easy way to install Flash - the reviewer says "I finally installed Flash with Firefox's built-in plug-in installer..." - this is the installer that offers to find and install the plugins for you when you come across content that it can't display. The reviewer decided - for himself - to go to Adobe's site and look for a download of Flash Player and then complained that it was "intimidating". Guess what - Vista doesn't come with Flash Player installed either, I had to install it myself... using Firefox's plugin finder.
while vista doesnt fare so well and cant run aero without a pretty beefy one
This is a total myth. I'm the last person to be a Microsoft Fanboi (look back at my posting history) but I have Vista with Aero running on a bargain basement notebook (Acer Extensa 5220) and it works perfectly. Sure, it would fly along with XP or Ubuntu and just about chuggs along with Vista, but it is perfectly useable - just like when XP was first installed OEM on low end laptops circa 2002. It's for my mother-in-law by the way.
I've been running Vista for about a fortnight, on the aforementioned laptop for my mum and also on my Dell XPS M1210, and I have to say it's pretty much comparable to OSX. I've used OSX on G3 Powermacs and it's painfully slow but useable if you must have OSX for some reason. On decent hardware OSX flies and is a big improvement on OS9. My nine month old M1210 is pretty much the same spec as the same age Macbook - and would probably run OSX very nicely with the right hack - and Vista absoulely flies along.
Good luck getting official support with tripwire on Debian.
Luck has nothing to do with it. Reading the extensive list of consultants categorised by country on the Debian site has everything to do with it.
Microsoft has every right to complain. They put a stranglehold on a market and got bitchslapped for it. Now, if Google is heading in the same direction (and I'm incline to believe the old adage "one smells one's own", if anyone can recognize a burgeoning monopoly, it's MS), they damn right should receive the same bitchslap. And MS has every right to demand it.
But this is exactly the point, there is no evidence (as yet) that Google has abused its position, whether it is actually a monopoly or not. Microsoft got in trouble because it was using its monopoly position in one marketplace (personal computer operating systems) to stifle competition in that marketplace (e.g. by refusing to supply discounted OS licences to OEM manufacturers who also shipped systems with other OSs, e.g. OS/2) and in other marketplaces, notably web browsers - not only by incorporating their browser with the OS, but again by giving unfavourable deals to OEMs who shipped Netscape on their systems.
If Google does start abusing their power - for instance by giving web sites that use other advertisers lower page ranking - then they should definitely be investigated for monopoly abuse. Currently there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is going on, and all of the markets that Google are involved in appear to be open to competition, even if the competition isn't there.
Thank goodness, someone with some sense. British Cardiology still very much relies on auscultation by an experienced clinician. Anyone requesting an echo or chest X-ray without an indication from physical examination will find their request denied.
I've personally picked up a number of minor heart defects - usually MR - on auscultation when assessing patients pre-operatively, which have then been confirmed by echo. We could echo everyone pre-op but that would be a poor use of resources.
I'm not sure of the point of digitally augmented stethoscopes clinically, but the ones that have recording capability could have uses for teaching.