[zx2c4]

> By the end of the training, they learned to name an average of 7.08 pitches (ranging from 3 to 12) at an accuracy of 90% or above and within a response-time (RT) window of 1,305–2,028 ms.

That doesn't actually seem very promising, or at least useful at all. It still seems way less useful than my accurate and near instantaneous relative-pitch. What could I do as a musician with 2 seconds of latency to be wrong some amount of the time.

[wrs]

Yes, thank goodness relative pitch is trainable, because that’s all you need, almost all the time. This new ability would let you come in on the right pitch for your first note, which is a cool trick. But after that, relative is fine. Indeed, it would be awful if you heard everything absolute and had to translate to relative (I’m guessing you can do both at the same time, though).

[neuralkoi]

I don't understand (I am not a musician). This was an 8-week training program (21.4h). How long have you spent perfecting your relative pitch?

[groby_b]

Your relative pitch gets decent within a few weeks of practice (<10h).

Getting it always right takes longer, and so do "weird" intervals, but the basic intervals are not that hard. Also, basic knowledge of song structure, phrases, and chords helps with relative pitch, because it narrows down the set of choices in many circumstances.

After all, the most useful exercise of relative pitch is "what's that melody", not "what's that random interval".

As for precision of relative pitch: After a year of weekly training, most people are able to tune a guitar to within 2-3 cents. Which is, granted, a very specific form of relative pitch, but it shows you can get pretty good precision at that. It probably extends further. (IDK, I have seen no examples of people explicitly practicing microtonal relative pitch outside of "tune an instrument")

[pazimzadeh]

Pretty sure you don’t lose your relative pitch, and the better you are at relative pitch the better results you’ll have anyway