The 10x Rule Audio Book Download
Selesio Gurule
HHS is issuing this guidance on audio-only telehealth in direct response to the Executive Order on Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in Government (E.O. 14058).8 This guidance will help ensure that individuals can continue to benefit from audio-only telehealth by clarifying how covered entities can provide telehealth services and improving public confidence that covered entities are protecting the privacy and security of their health information.
In addition, while telehealth can significantly expand access to health care, certain populations may have difficulty accessing or be unable to access technologies used for audio-video telehealth because of various factors, including financial resources, limited English proficiency, disability, internet access, availability of sufficient broadband, and cell coverage in the geographic area. Audio-only telehealth, especially using technologies that do not require broadband availability, can help address the needs of some of these individuals.9 To support access to such telehealth services, this guidance addresses questions that HHS has received about whether, and in what circumstances, audio-only telehealth is permissible under the HIPAA Rules.10
The Telehealth Notification provides that OCR will exercise its enforcement discretion and will not impose penalties on covered health care providers12 for noncompliance with the requirements of the HIPAA Rules in connection with the good faith provision of telehealth using non-public facing13 audio or video remote communication technologies during the COVID-19 PHE.14 As such, under the Telehealth Notification, covered health care providers can use any available non-public facing remote communication technologies for telehealth, even where those technologies, and the manner in which they are used, may not fully comply with the HIPAA Rules. The Telehealth Notification will remain in effect until the Secretary of HHS declares that the COVID-19 PHE no longer exists, or upon the expiration date of the declared PHE, whichever occurs first.
The HIPAA Security Rule does not apply to audio-only telehealth services provided by a covered entity that is using a standard telephone line, often described as a traditional landline,22 because the information transmitted is not electronic. Accordingly, a covered entity does not need to apply the Security Rule safeguards to telehealth services that they provide using such traditional landlines (regardless of the type of telephone technology the individual uses).
Yes. Covered health care providers may offer audio-only telehealth services using remote communication technologies consistent with the requirements of the HIPAA Rules, regardless of whether any health plan covers or pays for those services. Health plan coverage and payment policies for health care services delivered via telehealth are separate from questions about compliance with the HIPAA Rules and are not addressed in this document.
Comb filtering is a well-known problem in audio engineering. When you hear it, you immediately want to get rid of it. As a trained sound engineer, even the slightest hint of comb filtering causes your neck hairs raise.
The List of Subjects contains a list of index terms (List of Subjects) for each CFR part number cited in the document's heading. The terms provide a common vocabulary for indexing the rulemaking documents of all agencies and are the basis of the "CFR Index" prepared by the OFR.
The Supplementary Information section may include the regulatory history of this rulemaking proceeding. It will present the background information and detail necessary to give adequate notice of the issues to be commented on as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. It may also be used to provide additional information that is required by law, agency policy, or Executive order.
So I was watching Julian Krause's videos on different audio interfaces' headphone amps and learned about this 1/8 or 8x rule for output impedance and that mismatching the amp impedance with the headphone impedance could affect frequency response. How much does this mismatching actually affect frequency response?
Audio signal enhancement often involves the application of a time-varying filter, or suppression rule, to the frequency-domain transform of a corrupted signal. Here we address suppression rules derived under a Gaussian model and interpret them as spectral estimators in a Bayesian statistical framework. With regard to the optimal spectral amplitude estimator of Ephraim and Malah, we show that under the same modelling assumptions, alternative methods of Bayesian estimation lead to much simpler suppression rules exhibiting similarly effective behaviour. We derive three of such rules and demonstrate that, in addition to permitting a more straightforward implementation, they yield a more intuitive interpretation of the Ephraim and Malah solution.
(a) Any person may request a copy of the audio recording of a hearing except when a case or proceeding is confidential by statute, court rule or order. The recording will be provided by the court or by the transcriber designated by the Supreme Court in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 59 on CD or by audio download for a fee to be determined in accordance with a fee schedule approved by the Supreme Court. A copy of the recording of a court proceeding shall not be deemed to be the official record of the proceeding.
(b) In the case of any superior court proceeding made CONFIDENTIAL by New Hampshire statute, case law, or court order, no duplicate audio recording shall be released, except to a party to the proceeding granted access by the court or to an attorney for a party to the proceeding. In such cases, the party or attorney shall be advised of his or her obligation to keep the audio recording confidential.
Texas is considered a "one-party consent" state. This means that unless at least one of the parties to a conversation consents, both Texas and federal wiretapping laws make it a crime to record an audio conversation, either in person or over the phone, if the parties have a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Below you will find links to Texas and federal laws related to audio recordings. If you find these statutes difficult to understand, please see the Understanding the Law resources below for a "plain English" explanation of these laws.
Audio description is audio-narrated descriptions of a television program's key visual elements. These descriptions are inserted into natural pauses in the program's dialogue. Audio description makes television programming more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
4-9-13 Accessible Emergency Information, and Apparatus Requirements for Emergency Information and Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. Adopted rules requiring that emergency information provided in video programming be made accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired and that certain apparatus be capable of delivering video description and emergency information. (Dkt No. 11-43 12-107 ). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 04/08/2013 by R&O/FNPRM. (FCC No. 13-45). MB
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Word PDF
Commissioner Clyburn Statement: Word PDF
Commissioner Rosenworcel Statement: Word PDF
Commissioner Pai Statement: Word PDF
(A) The court or issuing authority may use two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication at any criminal proceeding except: (1) preliminary hearings; (2) proceedings pursuant to Rule 569(A)(2)(b); (3) proceedings pursuant to Rules 595 and 597; (4) trials; (5) sentencing hearings; (6) parole, probation, and intermediate punishment revocation hearings; and (7) any proceeding in which the defendant has a constitutional or statutory right to be physically present. (B) The defendant may consent to any proceeding being conducted using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication. (C) When counsel for the defendant is present, the defendant must be permitted to communicate fully and confidentially with defense counsel immediately prior to and during the proceeding.
Comment
This rule was adopted in 2003 to make it clear that unless the case comes within one of the exceptions in paragraph (A), the court or issuing authority may use two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication in any criminal proceeding. Two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication is a type of advanced communication technology as defined in Rule 103. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit any right of a defendant to waive his or her presence at a criminal proceeding in the same manner as the defendant may waive other rights. See, e.g., Rule 602 Comment. Negotiated guilty pleas when the defendant has agreed to the sentence, probation revocation hearings, and hearings held pursuant to Rule 908(C) and the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 9541 et seq., are examples of hearings in which the defendants consent to proceed using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication would be required. Hearings on post-sentence motions, bail hearings, bench warrant hearings, extradition hearings, and Gagnon I hearings are examples of proceedings that may be conducted using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication without the defendants consent. It is expected the court or issuing authority would conduct a colloquy for the defendants consent when the defendants constitutional right to be physically present is implicated. Within the meaning of this rule, counsel is present when physically with the defendant or with the judicial officer conducting the criminal proceeding. This rule does not apply to preliminary arraignments (Rule 540), arraignments (Rule 571), or to search warrant (Rule 203) and arrest warrant (Chapter 5 Part B(3)) procedures. This rule is not intended to preclude the use of advanced communication technology for the preservation of testimony as permitted by Rules 500 and 501. See Rule 542 for the procedures governing preliminary hearings. See Chapter 6 for the procedures governing trials. See Chapter 7 for the procedures governing sentencing hearings. See Rule 708 for the procedures governing revocation of probation, intermediate punishment, and parole. The paragraph (A)(5) reference to revocation hearings addresses Gagnon II-type probation (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)) and parole (Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972)) revocation hearings, and is not intended to prohibit the use of two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication in hearings to determine probable cause (Gagnon I).
Official Note New Rule 118 adopted August 7, 2003, effective September 1, 2003; renumbered Rule 119 and Comment revised June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006; amended January 27, 2006, effective August 1, 2006; Comment revised May 4, 2009, effective August 1, 2009; amended July 31, 2012, effective November 1, 2012. Committee Explanatory Reports: Final Report explaining new Rule 118 published with the Courts Order at 33 Pa.B. 4287 (August 30, 2003). Final Report explaining the June 30, 2005 renumbering of Rule 118 as Rule 119 and the revision of the second paragraph of the Comment published at 35 Pa.B. 3911 (July 16, 2005). Final Report explaining the January 27, 2006 amendments adding Rule 569 proceedings as a proceeding for which ACT may not be used published with the Courts Order at 36 Pa.B. 700 (February 11, 2006). Final Report explaining the May 4, 2009 revision to the Comment adding PCRA hearings as a proceeding to which the defendant may consent to be held using ACT published with the Courts Order at 39 Pa.B. 2434 (May 16, 2009). Final Report explaining the July 31, 2012 amendment to paragraph (A) adding proceedings under Rule 595 and 597 as a proceedings for which ACT may not be used published with the Courts Order at 42 Pa.B. 5340 (August 18, 2012).
Source