[HN Gopher] Learning fast and accurate absolute pitch judgment i...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Learning fast and accurate absolute pitch judgment in adulthood
        
       Author : dr_dshiv
       Score  : 63 points
       Date   : 2025-02-13 08:38 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (link.springer.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (link.springer.com)
        
       | zx2c4 wrote:
       | > 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.
        
         | neuralkoi wrote:
         | 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?
        
         | pazimzadeh wrote:
         | Pretty sure you don't lose your relative pitch, and the better
         | you are at relative pitch the better results you'll have anyway
        
       | dr_dshiv wrote:
       | I wonder if they combined this with Valproic acid, which
       | supposedly can help adults learn perfect pitch
       | https://www.npr.org/2014/01/04/259552442/want-perfect-pitch-...
        
         | d1sxeyes wrote:
         | Interesting. Word of caution though, valproic acid is
         | teratogenic, and should not be taken by anyone who may become
         | pregnant. The linked article suggests it could be a "wonder
         | drug" to enable learning, but there are also downsides to
         | taking it.
        
           | pazimzadeh wrote:
           | Yeah, until they figure out how to target it to your
           | ears/brain/whatever I would not take something that wipes
           | your body's epigenetic slate
        
       | ydnaclementine wrote:
       | Is this type of training more beneficial to do first rather than
       | recognizing intervals?
        
         | beepbooptheory wrote:
         | I think its gotta be just interesting on the theoretical side
         | around learning/cognition. Otherwise yeah, its like learning
         | exactly how salty something is when you taste it: not a total
         | waste of time maybe, but not directly beneficial for you as the
         | cook.
         | 
         | In school, at least when I was there, ear training was a
         | combination of recognizing harmony, rhythm, and simple melodies
         | with an arbitrary key, ontop of, of course, sight singing. It
         | is of course quite sufficient to have this skill with all of
         | that, but hardly necessary!
        
         | olddustytrail wrote:
         | It's not beneficial at all. Don't do it. The only music that
         | will sound "right" is autotuned crap from the most boring types
         | of music. Anything interesting will sound "out of tune".
        
       | 2c2c2c wrote:
       | i made https://perfectpitch.study a week or so ago. i am old and
       | musically untrained and wanted to see if rote practice makes a
       | difference (it clearly does).
       | 
       | most of the sites of this type i found annoying as you can't just
       | use a midi keyboard, so you just get RSI clicking around for 10
       | minutes.
       | 
       | I tried getting adsense on it, but they seem to have vague
       | content requirements. Apparently tools don't count as real
       | websites :-(. I couldn't even fool it with fake content. what's
       | the best banner ad company to use in this situation?
        
         | jawon wrote:
         | Gave it a try. After a few minutes I felt more like I was
         | recognising the samples than I was recognising the notes. Not
         | sure what you can do about that short of physically modeling an
         | instrument.
        
           | yojo wrote:
           | Latest browser APIs expose everything you need to build a
           | synth. See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
           | US/docs/Web/API/Web_Audio_A...
           | 
           | There are some libraries that make it easy to simulate
           | instruments. E.g. tone.js https://tonejs.github.io/
           | 
           | It should be possible to generate unique-ish variants at
           | runtime.
        
           | 2c2c2c wrote:
           | I am using midi and open source instrument packages, so this
           | is all handleable. There's a few instrument options to choose
           | from in the top right settings.
           | 
           | Will probably add a "randomize instrument used per round"
           | setting or something to really dial it in. I added a
           | randomize velocity option but didn't test it much
        
       | appleorchard46 wrote:
       | The perception of perfect pitch as this magical, unattainable
       | thing always seemed odd to me. Not surprised this reinforces that
       | it's mostly about memorization and practice.
       | 
       | Think of a song you know best, one you've listened to hundreds of
       | times: can you sing it or hear it in your head pretty accurately
       | (edit - not accurate intervals, but accurate pitch)? If so,
       | congrats, you have the capacity for perfect pitch. Learn what
       | note it starts on and you're 1/12 of the way there.
        
         | ByThyGrace wrote:
         | > and you're 1/12 of the way there.
         | 
         | I'm afraid my favorite song is on a microtonal scale...
        
         | dingnuts wrote:
         | >Think of a song you know best, one you've listened to hundreds
         | of times: can you sing it or hear it in your head pretty
         | accurately? If so, congrats, you have the capacity for perfect
         | pitch
         | 
         | No, this is relative pitch. You might be singing it in the
         | wrong key. That's why you can sing something a capella and it
         | sounds right and then you add an instrument playing the correct
         | notes and it doesn't.
        
           | zeroxfe wrote:
           | It's not. You should actually try out the exercise. (I used
           | this approach to build partial perfect pitch, i.e., to
           | sing/identify a small number of specific pitches.)
           | 
           | Close your eyes and try to imagine a song that you know
           | really well. Imagine the original version playing on your
           | phone/mp3 player/cd/record. Pick a stable note from that song
           | (for me, the third note of the beginning of "Tears in Heaven"
           | is a solid A.) Try to sing it and match the pitch in your
           | head.
           | 
           | As you practice it you'll get better, and do it faster, and
           | over time even be able to recognize it in the wild.
        
           | appleorchard46 wrote:
           | That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to songs you
           | know intimately enough that you _can_ sing a capella (or at
           | least hear in your head) in the right key. Edited original
           | comment for clarity.
           | 
           | This might not be something you personally can do, but for
           | those who have memorized a song in that way it's a convenient
           | way of demonstrating that perfect pitch isn't as unattainable
           | as it might seem.
        
             | viraptor wrote:
             | That's a different exercise though... wrong direction.
             | Absolute pitch recognition is hearing -> pitch. What you
             | describe is memory -> performance -> comparison <- hearing.
        
         | stackedinserter wrote:
         | > The perception of perfect pitch as this magical, unattainable
         | thing always seemed odd to me
         | 
         | Because it is really magical and unattainable
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Cb1qwCUvI
         | 
         | Show me an adult that trained to this level.
        
         | perching_aix wrote:
         | > The perception of perfect pitch as this magical, unattainable
         | thing always seemed odd to me.
         | 
         | Not sure why, it's taught and commonly considered to be an
         | ability you're born with rather than something you can develop
         | yourself later on.
         | 
         | > However, no adult has ever been documented to have acquired
         | absolute listening ability, because all adults who have been
         | formally tested after AP training have failed to demonstrate
         | "an unqualified level of accuracy... comparable to that of AP
         | possessors".
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch
         | 
         | The Wiki article also describes just prior to this cited
         | section that there have been countless attempts at it over the
         | centuries.
         | 
         | Doesn't exactly sound like a learnable skill to me.
        
       | narag wrote:
       | "Code availability: The codes used in this study were not
       | available to the public."
        
       | viraptor wrote:
       | Watch out what you wish for though. With age our hearing degrades
       | and the experienced frequency shifts. There's a number of people
       | with perfect pitch recognition who mentioned getting annoyed when
       | they got older and everything sounded slightly off. For practical
       | music, relative pitch is fine and commonly trained.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-02-13 23:00 UTC)