what i would like to see, or hear rather, is the sound of the data you are processing. I think that this would be cool because some of use have SETI@Home running all the time.

---

Been asked many times. A couple reasons why it's a bad idea:

1) The noise is similiar to tuning your radio between stations. That static you hear is very similiar to what space would sound like. Once the novelty wears off, it would be immediately turned off by many.

2) Since most would not use the sound option, it would add unneeded complexity to the program (supporting the right sound APIs for multiple platforms, compatibililty issues, people thinking they're sound card is bad - or the program is bad due to the nature of the sound), it would be wasted resources that would hardly get used.

3) The noise would keep a lot of people up who run their computers 24/7 in their bedrooms. Sure, you could turn the sound off at night, but reasons one and two come into mind (i.e. the novelty would wear off, and once it's worn off they'd turn it off, thus wasting a programmer's time to actually code something that's not really useful to the science).

---

Been asked many times. A couple reasons why it's a bad idea:

1) The noise is similiar to tuning your radio between stations. That static you hear is very similiar to what space would sound like. Once the novelty wears off, it would be immediately turned off by many.

2) Since most would not use the sound option, it would add unneeded complexity to the program (supporting the right sound APIs for multiple platforms, compatibililty issues, people thinking they're sound card is bad - or the program is bad due to the nature of the sound), it would be wasted resources that would hardly get used.

3) The noise would keep a lot of people up who run their computers 24/7 in their bedrooms. Sure, you could turn the sound off at night, but reasons one and two come into mind (i.e. the novelty would wear off, and once it's worn off they'd turn it off, thus wasting a programmer's time to actually code something that's not really useful to the science).

---

Well infact I would love to hear it and since it has been asked and answerd that many times then you are saying that there are alot of people who do want to hear it, besides I am sure that there could be an add on created so that way the people who don't want to hear it don't even have to download it.
Kind Regards Chrissy

---

THE SOUND OF SETI

We've taken ten seconds of data from the Arecibo telescope and converted it to sound. The original data is around 1.42 GigaHertz (billion cycles/second), which is way too high to hear. We've extracted an 11 second excerpt and shifted it down to the audible 10KHz range.

Expect to hear a hissing sound (white noise). That's how radio signals from space generally sound. The type of signal SETI@home is searching for would sound like a whistle. It would probably be too faint for the human ear to hear it although SETI's equipment is able to hear many of the deeply buried sound signals.

CLICK HERE!
to listen to the sound of the signals SETI receives.

Kind of boring, wouldn't you say... And yes! They all sound the same.

Well infact I would love to hear it and since it has been asked and answerd that many times then you are saying that there are alot of people who do want to hear it, besides I am sure that there could be an add on created so that way the people who don't want to hear it don't even have to download it.
Kind Regards Chrissy

With all due respect, ma'am, but lots of people are asking to win the lottery too. That doesn't mean people know what's best for them.

But, I suppose if someone wanted to create a add-on for BOINC that allowed for sound, then they could waste their time and cry over supporting the proper protocols, as long as the core BOINC team got to focus on the important back-end server stuff. Then people could hear the sounds of space if they wanted.

But I'm 98.7% sure that as soon as the novelty wore off, the majority of them would simply turn it off. But I guess that would be their prerogative.

---

A couple reasons why it's a bad idea:

Don't presuppose your point of view ;)
That for you it's a bad idea don't means that for other people also. I'm with Admin & criss. Why people interest SETI@Home at all? Because they don't know what to do with their computers? No! They want to have chance for analysing those signals with you. They wish to have access for the same data worldwide, like if they had the Arecibo RAs on their backyard :) They would to see the signals and hear if possible. They want to seek E.T. with you! ;) None idea is bad, only discutable. I imagine the man who said once that receiving noise from space is a bad idea! :D If it's true, there would be no SETI at all :P

The noise is similiar to tuning your radio between stations.

Yes, you're right of course. Looking at those FFT it's easy to imagine what it might hear - chaotic freq distribution, static noise. And few people could be able to hear it for a longer time. But the noise is NOT the sound we're looking for! :J We're all looking for a pattern ;) and for some people the pattern could be easier to hear than to see.
So I have an improvement for this idea: If a client find some pattern, some possible signal, then it switches on the sound :) It would be an alerting feature also ;) Imagine that suddenly your computer starts to make a strange sound and you see on your screen a pattern in signal :) Without the sound you would miss it ;)
Someone might also read relaxing with headphones in his ears, listening to that noise [but maybe filtered a little to pink or brown noise instead of white]. And if he hears something strange, he looks on the monitor.

The idea is not good, but also not bad. Maybe it's worth at least considering and discussing, maybe some improvements get it some life ;) [like the idea of add-on for those who want to hear it, not forcing the others to use them if they don't want to].

Since most would not use the sound option, it would add unneeded complexity to the program (supporting the right sound APIs for multiple platforms, compatibililty issues) [...] it would be wasted resources that would hardly get used.

You're right. Because of that it might be rather add-on project, not involving main developers of SETI@Home project, but some third-party passionates. It's always worth trying ;)

Don't presuppose your point of view ;)
That for you it's a bad idea don't means that for other people also. I'm with Admin & criss. Why people interest SETI@Home at all? Because they don't know what to do with their computers? No! They want to have chance for analysing those signals with you. They wish to have access for the same data worldwide, like if they had the Arecibo RAs on their backyard :) They would to see the signals and hear if possible. They want to seek E.T. with you! ;) None idea is bad, only discutable. I imagine the man who said once that receiving noise from space is a bad idea! :D If it's true, there would be no SETI at all :P

I haven't presupposed my POV at all, merely said what it is a bad idea. My guess is that you seem to only want to argue here, and that for some reason you've targeted mostly myself, and that is the only reason for you "agreeing" with these people.

You have assumed many things in your paragraph here about my POV, which you obviously know nothing about. And I certainly did not state that receiving noise from space was a bad idea. Please, keep from putting words in my mouth, as you seem to have a bad habbit of doing this as you reply to each one of my posts.

We're all looking for a pattern ;) and for some people the pattern could be easier to hear than to see.

I seriously doubt that. You're assuming that aliens even communicate within our hearing range, and you're assuming that people want to sit in front of their computers, manually "listening" for aliens. Whatever range we can hear in, a computer can detect much better than we can. Our hearing can be broken down into mathmatical equations that a computer could process a lot more accurately than our ears can. There really is no need for the sound option.

But, if someone wants to make a third party app to give that functionality, then by all means. I just know there's going to be problems with it and people are going to hold Berkeley responsible for their problems (many did with the third party apps that went with SETI Classic).

---

I haven't presupposed my POV at all, merely said what it is a bad idea. My guess is that you seem to only want to argue here, and that for some reason you've targeted mostly myself, and that is the only reason for you "agreeing" with these people.

You are overestimating me ;) Nothing personal, really. I've replied those posts without even looking for an author. I rarely fight with authors, I only have own opinion. If you've misunderstand me, that's my foult, sorry.

You have assumed many things in your paragraph here about my POV, which you obviously know nothing about.

You're right, I don't know you, I've only read that few posts and considered it like "every new way is good, but only if it's OUR way". If that's the point of this board, you're right, there isn't any sense to talk about it.

And I certainly did not state that receiving noise from space was a bad idea.

So how should I understand this?: "A couple reasons why it's a bad idea"

Please, keep from putting words in my mouth, as you seem to have a bad habbit of doing this as you reply to each one of my posts.

Now you do this to me ;) But that's OK, simple misunderstanding. Nevermind...

We're all looking for a pattern ;) and for some people the pattern could be easier to hear than to see.

I seriously doubt that. You're assuming that aliens even communicate within our hearing range

Again ;) I haven't had to assume it because it was proposed already by user called "'" [or some letter which don't display for me] - to transpose frequency range to audible band. I know that frequencies from the range of gigahertzes won't be audible, anyways it won't be audible even in audible frequency ranges without first converting to soundwaves ;J

and you're assuming that people want to sit in front of their computers, manually "listening" for aliens.

Not assuming, but giving that option, among of others I've mentioned.

Whatever range we can hear in, a computer can detect much better than we can. Our hearing can be broken down into mathmatical equations that a computer could process a lot more accurately than our ears can.

Yes, a human inner-ear [cochlea] works similar to Fourier analysis. But if the whole above was true, it would be easy to program a voice recognition systems. Sometimes precission is not enough and the quick associating and pattern recognition abilities of human neural networks are needed ;) But that's whole other story...

There really is no need for the sound option.

That's exactly the problematic question here. And you are not the only one who has right to express own opinion [or maybe I missed something in The Rulz again? ;)]. Your mind I already know, and you know mine. I'd like now to know opinions of other people ;) At the moment there is 3 pros and 1 con ;)

I just know there's going to be problems with it

The difference between us is that you dislike something without ever trying, and I only after I try. My role here is to show the other side of the moon also.

and people are going to hold Berkeley responsible for their problems (many did with the third party apps that went with SETI Classic).

Maybe not responsible - that's not you fault since not you wrote this soft. But when people have problems with soft and don't know how to solve it, they would like to ask someone for help. That kind of community support important if you manage big project for the whole world. And some people like to help others. It should be more of them here i think.

P.S. Sorry for writing here, but I hadn't found PrivMsg option yet...

There really is no need for the sound option.

That's exactly the problematic question here. And you are not the only one who has right to express own opinion [or maybe I missed something in The Rulz again? ;)]. Your mind I already know, and you know mine. I'd like now to know opinions of other people ;) At the moment there is 3 pros and 1 con ;)[/quote]
I think you misunderstood, I believe if you go back and check he said that he thinks Berkeley should not put their efforts into this endeavor, I whole heartedly agree with this, and instead a 3rd party should do the work, I also agree with this. I think it is a waste of time, there was a program to do that back in the Classic days, it sounded like static, nothing more nothing less. No variations, no nothing, just static.

---

The link to the sound file is dead. Any new links to it?

+1 pro.
I think it's not a problem create a plug-in.

I'm starting to think that you want to hide something from us. :))) _paranoia_

I want sound too!!!

So, find someone who wants to write a plug-in. There is no one has heard it that wants to make it. So, unless a 3rd party person is willing to do it, it will not get done. A 3rd party person made one for Classic, but never really kept it up.

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

Well I'm new to the Boinc, but Seti@home is what got me interested. I could see how listening to static or what not can become boring. I actually logged in to the forum to see if I could post the same question. I'm glad I found a thread already dealing in it. I'd still like it as an option and every time I put my headphones on, I'd feel like I was playing lotto. Maybe I'd hear a beep or HI!!!.
I've never hit lotto and it hasn't kept me from trying it every now and then.

For now maybe ziggy can get that link working :-D.

Off the weblinks page, there is a "Listen to Space Sounds" at Spacesounds.com.

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

Thanks for that link Pooh, Pulsar PSR sounds like someone is stomping around up there.

The Univers is so noisy... thx to the spacesounds.com, why not Seti@home???

---

The Univers is so noisy... thx to the spacesounds.com, why not Seti@home???

Because nobody has written a plugin for it.

---

Listening to WU's, Jodie Foster style, would get old after only a couple of minutes.

Plus, I believe that each WU is only like 80 seconds of actual recorded time...