Random 2

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   50  -0.0516  0.0137  0.0538  0.0553  0.0235  0.03
Bacha 1997   28  0.0033  0.0029  0.0631  0.0653  0.0227  0.03
Barbosa 1983   47  -0.0440  0.0045  0.0444  0.0452  0.0243  0.03
Biret 1990   27  0.0029  0.0042  0.0628  0.0653  0.0238  0.03
Block 1995   8  0.0327  0.007  0.088  0.3952  0.035  0.11
Brailowsky 1960   6  0.042  0.112  0.182  0.5351  0.043  0.15
Chiu 1999   16  0.0130  0.0021  0.0721  0.1651  0.0318  0.07
Clidat 1994   46  -0.0435  0.0048  0.0350  0.0353  0.0251  0.02
Cohen 1997   5  0.0517  0.0114  0.109  0.3551  0.038  0.10
Cortot 1951   17  0.0151  0.0028  0.0536  0.0552  0.0240  0.03
Csalog 1996   10  0.0221  0.016  0.087  0.4351  0.036  0.11
Czerny 1990   15  0.019  0.0333  0.0630  0.0653  0.0237  0.03
Ezaki 2006   52  -0.0947  0.0052  0.0252  0.0253  0.0247  0.02
Ferenczy 1958   26  0.0039  0.0035  0.0533  0.0552  0.0229  0.03
Fliere 1977   38  -0.0244  0.0050  0.0347  0.0353  0.0249  0.02
Fou 1978   18  0.0125  0.0111  0.1010  0.3451  0.037  0.10
Francois 1956   3  0.0813  0.0215  0.1016  0.2651  0.0314  0.09
Grinberg 1951   7  0.0312  0.0213  0.1013  0.3051  0.0217  0.08
Hatto 1993   37  -0.0148  0.0043  0.0446  0.0453  0.0239  0.03
Hatto 1997   13  0.0136  0.0030  0.0537  0.0553  0.0228  0.03
Indjic 2001   11  0.0242  0.0031  0.0534  0.0553  0.0233  0.03
Jonas 1947   35  -0.0120  0.0134  0.0629  0.0652  0.0232  0.03
Kapell 1951   44  -0.0352  0.0051  0.0445  0.0453  0.0236  0.03
Kiepura 1999   40  -0.0249  0.0046  0.0348  0.0353  0.0248  0.02
Kushner 1989   21  0.0028  0.0012  0.0915  0.2751  0.0311  0.09
Luisada 1991   4  0.0715  0.019  0.0912  0.3352  0.0215  0.08
Lushtak 2004   20  0.0043  0.0026  0.0526  0.0952  0.0223  0.04
Magaloff 1978   36  -0.0118  0.0119  0.0719  0.1951  0.0316  0.08
Meguri 1997   9  0.0338  0.008  0.094  0.4752  0.0210  0.10
Milkina 1970   14  0.0126  0.0116  0.0911  0.3351  0.039  0.10
Mohovich 1999   32  0.008  0.0332  0.0540  0.0551  0.0234  0.03
Niedzielski 1931   2  0.094  0.073  0.213  0.4851  0.034  0.12
Ohlsson 1999   12  0.017  0.0310  0.116  0.4452  0.0213  0.09
Olejniczak 1990   42  -0.0250  0.0044  0.0442  0.0453  0.0244  0.03
Osinska 1989   51  -0.0737  0.0053  0.0253  0.0253  0.0250  0.02
Rangell 2001   22  0.005  0.075  0.115  0.4453  0.0212  0.09
Richter 1976   43  -0.0322  0.0149  0.0351  0.0352  0.0252  0.02
Rubinstein 1938   29  0.0032  0.0038  0.0539  0.0553  0.0241  0.03
Rubinstein 1952   25  0.0031  0.0039  0.0632  0.0651  0.0245  0.03
Rubinstein 1961   31  0.0014  0.0141  0.0443  0.0453  0.0242  0.03
Rubinstein 1966   24  0.0011  0.0240  0.0441  0.0453  0.0246  0.03
Shebanova 2002   23  0.0024  0.0122  0.0622  0.1452  0.0222  0.05
Smidowicz 1948   34  0.0045  0.0025  0.0425  0.0952  0.0225  0.04
Smidowicz 1948b   30  0.0046  0.0018  0.0818  0.1952  0.0221  0.06
Smith 1975   33  0.006  0.0320  0.0720  0.1752  0.0220  0.06
Sofronitsky 1949   39  -0.0219  0.0136  0.0535  0.0552  0.0231  0.03
Sztompka 1959   49  -0.0523  0.0124  0.0523  0.1053  0.0226  0.04
Tomsic 1995   41  -0.0234  0.0017  0.0814  0.2852  0.0219  0.07
Uninsky 1971   48  -0.0541  0.0047  0.0349  0.0352  0.0253  0.02
Wasowski 1980   1  0.101  0.301  0.291  0.6050  0.042  0.15
Average Tempo   19  0.0053  0.0027  0.0627  0.0652  0.0230  0.03
Random 1   53  -0.1910  0.0223  0.0524  0.1053  0.0224  0.04
Random 2   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 3   45  -0.033  0.114  0.1017  0.2215  0.231  0.22

Note: To load data table give above into Excel, copy and paste the data into a text editor (such as WordPad) first, then copy the text in the editor and past into Excel. You should remove the "target" line from the data before pasting into Excel so that plotting graphs of the data is done properly.

Column descriptions

  • Performance:
  • 0-Rank/0-Score: 0-Score is equivalent to Pearson correlation of the entire data sequence between the reference performance and a test performance. 0-Rank is the sorting order of the 0-scores (highest score has a rank of 1).
  • 1-Rank/1-Score: 1-Score is the area fraction covered by a particular performance in the scape plot (see image above). These values should not be taken literally, since they are sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 2-Rank/2-Score: 2-Score values are equivalent to 1-Score values with all higher-ranking performances removed before the calculation of the area of coverage in the scape is calculated. Improvment over the 1-Rank scores, but still somewhat sensitive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3-Rank/3-Score: Similar to 2-Rank calculations. The bottom 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are kept constant as a noise floor for the similarity measurement. Then one-by-one the top 1/2 of the 2-rank performances are superimposed with the noise-floor performances, and a 3-score is measured as the area covered in the scape. This measure is not sentisive to the Hatto Effect.
  • 3R-Rank/3R-Score: Reverse 3-rank/3-scores. 3-rankings and scores are not symmetric (A->B values are different from B->A values). So this column represents similarity measures in the opposite direction.
  • 4-Rank/4-Score: The geometric mean between 3-scores and 3R-scores. This column gives the best overall similarity ranking between the various performances (see color codes below).
  • NED: Noise Equivalient Distance (not yet implemented)

Color codes for 3-rank listings:

  • red = strongly similar performance to target
  • orange = moderately similar performance
  • yellow = weakly similar performance
  • green = marginally similar/dissimilar performance
  • white = dissimilar to target
  • blue = false positive (has high 3-rank score but low 3R-rank score)

3-rank/scores are not symmetric, so the 3R-rank/score columns give the 3-rank/scores going in the opposite direction. More matches in the 3-rank column than in the 3R-rank column indicates an individualistic performance, while more matches in the 3R-rank column indicates a mainstream performance.

If a 3-rank and a 3R-rank are both marked as similar to each other, then there is a possible direct relation between the performances. If one is similar to the other but not in the reverse direction, then the similarity is more likely to be by chance (performers randomly chose a similar interpretation).