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  -0.0519  0.0145  0.0446  0.0453  0.0235  0.03
Bacha 1997   37  -0.0145  0.0037  0.0634  0.0653  0.0228  0.03
Barbosa 1983   52  -0.0531  0.0044  0.0442  0.0453  0.0245  0.03
Biret 1990   24  0.0043  0.0034  0.0632  0.0653  0.0241  0.03
Block 1995   23  0.0032  0.0030  0.0633  0.0653  0.0233  0.03
Brailowsky 1960   26  0.0010  0.0213  0.1114  0.3452  0.0212  0.08
Chiu 1999   28  -0.0147  0.0042  0.0537  0.0552  0.0230  0.03
Clidat 1994   51  -0.0540  0.0049  0.0252  0.0253  0.0251  0.02
Cohen 1997   7  0.0113  0.0116  0.1213  0.3451  0.037  0.10
Cortot 1951   34  -0.0130  0.0043  0.0538  0.0553  0.0243  0.03
Csalog 1996   11  0.0025  0.0010  0.118  0.4152  0.0211  0.09
Czerny 1990   40  -0.0226  0.0033  0.0536  0.0553  0.0239  0.03
Ezaki 2006   48  -0.0441  0.0051  0.0250  0.0253  0.0247  0.02
Ferenczy 1958   25  0.0044  0.0040  0.0441  0.0453  0.0229  0.03
Fliere 1977   44  -0.0239  0.0046  0.0347  0.0353  0.0249  0.02
Fou 1978   12  0.0018  0.016  0.124  0.4752  0.026  0.10
Francois 1956   2  0.0212  0.0211  0.1216  0.3252  0.0216  0.08
Grinberg 1951   4  0.027  0.045  0.127  0.4452  0.028  0.09
Hatto 1993   29  -0.0152  0.0039  0.0444  0.0453  0.0242  0.03
Hatto 1997   14  0.0050  0.0018  0.0817  0.2653  0.0217  0.07
Indjic 2001   13  0.0051  0.0019  0.0819  0.2453  0.0218  0.07
Jonas 1947   30  -0.0134  0.0036  0.0635  0.0653  0.0234  0.03
Kapell 1951   43  -0.0242  0.0048  0.0445  0.0453  0.0236  0.03
Kiepura 1999   49  -0.0446  0.0052  0.0251  0.0253  0.0248  0.02
Kushner 1989   10  0.0021  0.0012  0.1410  0.3651  0.0215  0.08
Luisada 1991   15  0.0023  0.0026  0.0725  0.1353  0.0225  0.05
Lushtak 2004   39  -0.0237  0.0047  0.0348  0.0352  0.0252  0.02
Magaloff 1978   18  0.0014  0.019  0.1112  0.3451  0.034  0.10
Meguri 1997   9  0.0111  0.028  0.106  0.4452  0.0210  0.09
Milkina 1970   17  0.0020  0.0020  0.0918  0.2452  0.0219  0.07
Mohovich 1999   19  0.006  0.0514  0.0811  0.3553  0.0214  0.08
Niedzielski 1931   5  0.0217  0.0115  0.1115  0.3352  0.0213  0.08
Ohlsson 1999   6  0.019  0.027  0.125  0.4552  0.029  0.09
Olejniczak 1990   32  -0.0128  0.0023  0.0726  0.1253  0.0226  0.05
Osinska 1989   53  -0.0549  0.0053  0.0253  0.0253  0.0250  0.02
Rangell 2001   31  -0.018  0.0222  0.0822  0.1952  0.0222  0.06
Richter 1976   38  -0.0122  0.0041  0.0539  0.0553  0.0240  0.03
Rubinstein 1938   35  -0.0129  0.0038  0.0443  0.0453  0.0244  0.03
Rubinstein 1952   21  0.0036  0.0028  0.0629  0.0653  0.0246  0.03
Rubinstein 1961   22  0.005  0.0624  0.0624  0.1853  0.0223  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   16  0.0016  0.0125  0.1021  0.2053  0.0224  0.06
Shebanova 2002   36  -0.0133  0.0021  0.0723  0.1953  0.0221  0.06
Smidowicz 1948   45  -0.0238  0.0035  0.0440  0.0453  0.0238  0.03
Smidowicz 1948b   41  -0.0224  0.0032  0.0630  0.0653  0.0237  0.03
Smith 1975   8  0.013  0.104  0.193  0.5052  0.025  0.10
Sofronitsky 1949   33  -0.0127  0.0029  0.0631  0.0653  0.0232  0.03
Sztompka 1959   46  -0.0215  0.0127  0.0727  0.0753  0.0227  0.04
Tomsic 1995   42  -0.0235  0.0017  0.0820  0.2353  0.0220  0.07
Uninsky 1971   47  -0.0448  0.0050  0.0349  0.0353  0.0253  0.02
Wasowski 1980   1  0.044  0.083  0.222  0.6151  0.033  0.14
Average Tempo   27  0.0053  0.0031  0.0628  0.0653  0.0231  0.03
Random 1   20  0.002  0.152  0.229  0.3721  0.182  0.26
Random 2   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 3   3  0.021  0.301  0.291  0.631  0.601  0.61

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).