Hi all,

I have a very big please to you. Is any program out there like boincspy who can convert automatically the WUs to audio files?

I have Linux on my pc.Any idea how can i convert my Wus to audio?

I hope you can help me!

Thanks

---

SETI

I don't know why you'd want to.... al you'd hear is a bunch of static. Just turn on your T.V. to a channel that gets a bunch of static.... 1% of that is left over space radiation anyway :)

---

I have Linux on my pc.Any idea how can i convert my Wus to audio?

Well basicly each workunit is nothing more than plain XML.
So i expect the structure to be somthing like this:

<WU>
<DATA>
[audio]
</DATA>
</WU>

When you extract this you should have the audio.

Based on its origin i expect that to be a very basic format (like a WAV file) which has one chanel (mono) and a high samplerate.

One more thing to considder is that when this is the actual output of the telescope reciever the frquencies are to high to be heard by humans while low frequencies are not recorded at all so you probably won't hear a thing.

If you like listening to random noise i can recomend the latest CD of some .....metal band.

---

This is asked for every so often. There was a program in Classic that converted the data to "noise". As other stated it is just more or less static.

If you are interested there is a site that does give The sounds of Space.

---

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

... Based on its origin i expect that to be a very basic format (like a WAV file) which has one chanel (mono) and a high samplerate.

Fair guesses, but there's a bit more to it...

The old data for s@h-classic and for the Boinc science application was single bit resolution complex numbers. The multibeam WUs I would guess are now multi-bit resolution complex numbers due to their improved data recorder.

Anyone know for sure?

One more thing to considder is that when this is the actual output of the telescope reciever the frquencies are to high to be heard by humans while low frequencies are not recorded at all so you probably won't hear a thing.

The recorded data is mixed down in frequency. The WUs are then a small subband out of the spectrum. Sorry, too lazy/busy to look up the numbers.

You can 'play' the data in the audio range just as you can get bat detectors that mix down the bat 100kHz down to human audo kHz. Or whale detectors that mix up the whale Hz to human kHz... ;-)

If you like listening to random noise i can recomend the latest CD of some .....metal band.

Naahhhh... There's even better from some bands that is actually called "noise"!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

One more thing to considder is that when this is the actual output of the telescope reciever the frquencies are to high to be heard by humans while low frequencies are not recorded at all so you probably won't hear a thing.

The recorded data is mixed down in frequency. The WUs are then a small subband out of the spectrum. Sorry, too lazy/busy to look up the numbers.

You can 'play' the data in the audio range just as you can get bat detectors that mix down the bat 100kHz down to human audo kHz. Or whale detectors that mix up the whale Hz to human kHz... ;-)

I wasn't aware that step had been done already.

If you like listening to random noise i can recomend the latest CD of some .....metal band.

Naahhhh... There's even better from some bands that is actually called "noise"!


Keep searchin',
Martin

Art Of Noise ???

---

...
The old data for s@h-classic and for the Boinc science application was single bit resolution complex numbers. The multibeam WUs I would guess are now multi-bit resolution complex numbers due to their improved data recorder.

Anyone know for sure?

The encoding format has not changed, it's still 2 bits representing a complex value. There's more header information now, and it's in XML format so the WUs are about 20 KB larger than Classic WUs.

However, it is definitely possible to use WU2WAV to decode the data. You just take the data from a setiathome_enhanced WU, paste it into a Classic work_unit.sah, and WU2WAV will create a 2 MB wav file from that. I've only tested that with the Windows version of WU2WAV, but the Linux version ought to be the same.

If you don't have a Classic WU, you can download one which was used for classic crunching performance comparisons from http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/benchfile.htm.

                                                              Joe

Hi all,

thank you very much for your help and your answers.

@josef w. segur
yes it works, yesterday i have decoded my first WU to audio and wow amazing i've heard how sounds our universe. I used the audacity (audio editor for linux) and i played a little bit with the playback speed, the channels, the frequency etc and the results was amazing.
Our Universe sounds like a flying jet ,really amazing experience.

joe thank you for your help!

@all

I have one more question.

Audacity (my linux audio editor) shows all the Gaussians in just a couple of seconds, now im asking my self why we are crunching with our computers too many hours for every WU while with the help of a sound editor we can do it in much lesser time? perhaps someone have to wright a program who can do this job much easier and faster for us and of course for our friends in Berkeley.
Any ideas?????



and this one:



thank you.

---

SETI

Well I remember watching SAH Classic (and even the MB BOINC ones do it, too), but it finds gaussians the same way as Audacity--Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). It scans through it real fast and with a really large viewing area to average an area, and then moves on. What it does in subsequent passes is narrows the focus to give a better representation (and less of a skewed average) of what the actual frequencies are.

On Classic, I was using SETI-Spy to log everything (and I have several thousand GIF images of the gaussians that were found in WUs I did, as well as a sky map for where all the WUs were recorded from..interesting stuff), but for about the first 3 minutes of a WU, it would project that I was crunching at about 3 TeraFLOPs, and then after that, it would drop down to a normal range of something like 150 MegaFLOPs. That's when it was looking over the WU with a very large inclusion area to figure out where it should look next.

You can't really see this all that much in the BOINC client, but if you notice when a WU starts up, it takes about a minute before it starts showing any percentage at all. During that time of processing with no percentage, it is doing a wide FFT sweep to figure out the areas of interest.

By the way petros, thumbs up on SuSE. :D

[edit: also, if it wasn't explained clearly enough by anyone else, it is very simple, even with MB WUs, to convert them so that WU2WAV can handle it.

Open the MB WUs (~360kb in size) in a text editor, strip away all of the XML tags. Don't forget there's two at the very end. At the very beginning of the file, add these two lines:

nsamples=1048576
end_seti_header

Do that, and WU2WAV works for any MB WU.

I played around with the one AP WU I have, and it doesn't work. Tweaked a few things here and there, it only finds 417 samples and decides that's not enough to bother converting.]

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

...
I have one more question.

Audacity (my linux audio editor) shows all the Gaussians in just a couple of seconds, now im asking my self why we are crunching with our computers too many hours for every WU while with the help of a sound editor we can do it in much lesser time? perhaps someone have to wright a program who can do this job much easier and faster for us and of course for our friends in Berkeley.
Any ideas?????
...

The Gaussians that S@H is looking for are ones which fit the pattern expected as the telescope view crosses over an astronomical source which is sending a constant very high power signal at a single frequency. What WU2WAV is producing is a single wav file with the full bandwidth sent in a WU, 9765.625 Hz, and with no compensation for doppler.

S@H breaks the data into narrower bandwidths using FFTs, so Gaussian fitting is done at about 1220.7, 610.35, 305.18, 152.59, 76.29, 38.15, 19.07, 9.54, 4.77, 2.38, 1.192, and 0.596 Hz bandwidths. In addition, relative acceleration between the Arecibo telescope and the source causes doppler shifts of the frequency during the observing time. S@H analyzes with a large number of different dechirp compensations for that effect. In a typical mid-range WU the product of those factors means you'd need to produce and check 600 million wav files to match the S@H Gaussian fitting.

                                                              Joe

Hi all,

Joe thank you for the explanation!
Cosmic Ocean ,thank you too for the infos.

I have converted one of my WU's to a wav file and then i changed the playback to 98 % slower speed in 22.050 Hz and the result it was amazing. All this scratching was gone and what i heard it was how our cosmos vibrating!

Its like listening permanently a jet or the moment when a big nuclear bomb exploding.

Our Universe is alive and constantly we receive this cosmic vibrations from all corners of our Universe. Amazing!

Our Universe Rocks and when i turned the volume higher my boxes and all the things in my room started vibrating to my WU rhythm.

I uploaded a 45 sec. sample of my WU in a mp3 format file (724 Kb size) ,if anyone want to listen how our Universe rocks here the link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/137774745/01mr08ab.1470.20522.4.8.84-3.mp3

petro

---

SETI