Richter 1960

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   20  0.825  0.0224  0.0822  0.2848  0.0524  0.12
Ax 1995   53  0.7056  0.0035  0.0735  0.0739  0.0638  0.06
Bacha 1998   22  0.8110  0.014  0.119  0.4520  0.416  0.43
Barbosa 1983   58  0.6539  0.0052  0.0449  0.0457  0.0550  0.04
BenOr 1989   48  0.7158  0.0057  0.0363  0.0350  0.0555  0.04
Biret 1990   8  0.8551  0.0014  0.118  0.4541  0.0522  0.15
Brailowsky 1960   13  0.843  0.0210  0.174  0.5211  0.413  0.46
Chiu 1999   55  0.6824  0.0156  0.0359  0.0355  0.0461  0.03
Clidat 1994   17  0.8355  0.0011  0.137  0.4616  0.434  0.44
Cohen 1997   56  0.6763  0.0051  0.0455  0.0430  0.1734  0.08
Cortot 1951   36  0.7654  0.0030  0.0630  0.1320  0.2119  0.17
Csalog 1996   49  0.7126  0.0048  0.0357  0.0353  0.0551  0.04
Czerny 1989   50  0.7150  0.0042  0.0734  0.0753  0.0440  0.05
Ezaki 2006   46  0.716  0.0258  0.0360  0.0362  0.0359  0.03
Falvay 1989   12  0.8428  0.005  0.1213  0.4434  0.0815  0.19
Fiorentino 1962   15  0.8452  0.0022  0.0721  0.2832  0.1018  0.17
Fliere 1977   10  0.8453  0.0019  0.0818  0.3239  0.0623  0.14
Fou 1978   60  0.6436  0.0055  0.0451  0.0463  0.0362  0.03
Francois 1956   23  0.8133  0.0020  0.0919  0.317  0.429  0.36
Goldenweiser 1946   62  0.5657  0.0061  0.0358  0.0360  0.0460  0.03
Gornostaeva 1994   29  0.7761  0.0037  0.0448  0.0453  0.0454  0.04
Groot 1988   7  0.8514  0.0113  0.0911  0.4537  0.0816  0.19
Hatto 1993   27  0.7729  0.0032  0.0731  0.1342  0.0630  0.09
Hatto 1997   33  0.7637  0.0033  0.0637  0.0649  0.0637  0.06
Horszowski 1983   61  0.6220  0.0145  0.0541  0.0558  0.0446  0.04
Indjic 2001   34  0.7635  0.0034  0.0933  0.0954  0.0536  0.07
Katin 1996   4  0.8631  0.007  0.1310  0.4521  0.2711  0.35
Kiepura 1999   39  0.7440  0.0015  0.1017  0.364  0.515  0.43
Korecka 1992   28  0.7762  0.0031  0.0928  0.1643  0.0626  0.10
Kushner 1990   54  0.6815  0.0140  0.0540  0.0562  0.0349  0.04
Lilamand 2001   63  0.4543  0.0063  0.0364  0.0359  0.0364  0.03
Luisada 1990   16  0.8316  0.0116  0.1214  0.4038  0.0620  0.15
Luisada 2008   21  0.8246  0.0025  0.0823  0.2750  0.0427  0.10
Lushtak 2004   18  0.8313  0.0126  0.0820  0.3132  0.1117  0.18
Malcuzynski 1951   57  0.6627  0.0018  0.0832  0.1237  0.0535  0.08
Malcuzynski 1961   47  0.7149  0.0041  0.0636  0.0652  0.0542  0.05
Magaloff 1977   42  0.7338  0.0054  0.0544  0.0552  0.0544  0.05
Magin 1975   26  0.7934  0.0029  0.0727  0.1849  0.0528  0.09
Meguri 1997   59  0.6448  0.0062  0.0362  0.0363  0.0363  0.03
Milkina 1970   38  0.7460  0.0046  0.0539  0.0541  0.0541  0.05
Mohovich 1999   11  0.8417  0.0117  0.1815  0.4019  0.427  0.41
Nezu 2005   35  0.7618  0.0136  0.0638  0.0639  0.0545  0.05
Ohlsson 1999   5  0.852  0.0412  0.1116  0.3927  0.2012  0.28
Olejniczak 1990   30  0.7747  0.0038  0.0453  0.0457  0.0457  0.04
Osinska 1989   9  0.857  0.018  0.1212  0.4424  0.1713  0.27
Perlemuter 1992   41  0.7419  0.0143  0.0450  0.0458  0.0447  0.04
Poblocka 1999   3  0.868  0.016  0.123  0.5332  0.1414  0.27
Rangell 2001   44  0.7225  0.0059  0.0454  0.0436  0.0556  0.04
Richter 1960   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Richter 1961   1  0.901  0.651  0.641  0.771  0.841  0.80
Rosen 1989   45  0.7244  0.0044  0.0543  0.0553  0.0453  0.04
Rubinstein 1939   6  0.8530  0.009  0.136  0.5024  0.2410  0.35
Rubinstein 1952   37  0.7641  0.0039  0.0542  0.0560  0.0458  0.04
Rubinstein 1966   2  0.8711  0.012  0.232  0.5419  0.248  0.36
Rudanovskaya 2007   31  0.7745  0.0047  0.0456  0.0427  0.1632  0.08
Shebanova 2002   43  0.7323  0.0153  0.0545  0.0550  0.0643  0.05
Smith 1975   40  0.7422  0.0150  0.0452  0.0441  0.0639  0.05
Sztompka 1959   51  0.7066  0.0060  0.0546  0.0559  0.0448  0.04
Tanyel 1992   52  0.704  0.0249  0.0547  0.0553  0.0452  0.04
Tsujii 2005   14  0.8412  0.0123  0.0724  0.2248  0.0429  0.09
Uninsky 1959   32  0.7632  0.0021  0.0729  0.1560  0.0431  0.08
Vardi 1988   19  0.8321  0.013  0.195  0.501  0.582  0.54
Wasowski 1980   25  0.7942  0.0028  0.0826  0.2151  0.0525  0.10
Zimerman 1975   24  0.809  0.0127  0.0925  0.2233  0.1021  0.15
Random 1   66  -0.0565  0.0065  0.0265  0.028  0.3533  0.08
Random 2   65  0.0064  0.0066  0.0166  0.0143  0.0566  0.02
Random 3   64  0.1659  0.0064  0.0361  0.0344  0.0465  0.03

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).