Jonas 1947

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   43  0.5641  0.0044  0.0538  0.0537  0.0738  0.06
Bacha 1997   33  0.6243  0.0038  0.0630  0.0634  0.0734  0.06
Barbosa 1983   35  0.6127  0.0025  0.0724  0.1321  0.2614  0.18
Biret 1990   12  0.687  0.0315  0.1115  0.2731  0.0818  0.15
Block 1995   37  0.6012  0.0140  0.0634  0.0613  0.4715  0.17
Brailowsky 1960   32  0.6249  0.0037  0.0726  0.0729  0.0730  0.07
Chiu 1999   44  0.5545  0.0046  0.0636  0.0638  0.0635  0.06
Clidat 1994   25  0.6432  0.0035  0.0633  0.0636  0.0736  0.06
Cohen 1997   18  0.6635  0.0021  0.0720  0.2325  0.1611  0.19
Cortot 1951   11  0.6811  0.0112  0.1012  0.3010  0.476  0.38
Csalog 1996   14  0.6716  0.0118  0.0718  0.2540  0.0622  0.12
Czerny 1990   4  0.7421  0.014  0.185  0.5818  0.295  0.41
Ezaki 2006   9  0.7028  0.007  0.158  0.4238  0.0616  0.16
Ferenczy 1958   29  0.635  0.036  0.1217  0.2545  0.0524  0.11
Fliere 1977   15  0.6630  0.0017  0.0810  0.3239  0.0717  0.15
Fou 1978   22  0.6536  0.0032  0.0446  0.0445  0.0549  0.04
Francois 1956   48  0.469  0.0245  0.0447  0.0430  0.0840  0.06
Grinberg 1951   49  0.4617  0.0149  0.0728  0.0735  0.0732  0.07
Hatto 1993   30  0.6244  0.0036  0.0727  0.0732  0.0733  0.07
Hatto 1997   20  0.6540  0.0023  0.0911  0.3044  0.0520  0.12
Indjic 2001   24  0.6420  0.0126  0.0635  0.0636  0.0637  0.06
Jonas 1947   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Kapell 1951   7  0.7010  0.018  0.116  0.4925  0.128  0.24
Kiepura 1999   45  0.5514  0.0120  0.0625  0.1226  0.1023  0.11
Kushner 1989   38  0.5915  0.0142  0.0543  0.0538  0.0642  0.05
Luisada 1991   47  0.4725  0.0048  0.0448  0.0446  0.0546  0.04
Lushtak 2004   3  0.752  0.133  0.313  0.6610  0.454  0.54
Magaloff 1978   41  0.5833  0.0039  0.0729  0.0728  0.0831  0.07
Meguri 1997   5  0.716  0.0311  0.117  0.4546  0.0519  0.15
Milkina 1970   13  0.6846  0.0022  0.0916  0.2544  0.0526  0.11
Mohovich 1999   26  0.6429  0.0028  0.0541  0.0549  0.0450  0.04
Niedzielski 1931   6  0.718  0.025  0.234  0.607  0.503  0.55
Ohlsson 1999   28  0.6438  0.0029  0.0631  0.0648  0.0543  0.05
Olejniczak 1990   19  0.6642  0.0033  0.0545  0.0546  0.0544  0.05
Osinska 1989   36  0.6124  0.0027  0.0540  0.0546  0.0541  0.05
Rangell 2001   10  0.6926  0.0014  0.1113  0.2848  0.0521  0.12
Richter 1976   46  0.5437  0.0030  0.0539  0.0521  0.1629  0.09
Rubinstein 1938   17  0.663  0.1010  0.1021  0.2225  0.1413  0.18
Rubinstein 1952   40  0.5839  0.0047  0.0542  0.0540  0.0545  0.05
Rubinstein 1961   16  0.6622  0.0024  0.1022  0.1924  0.1912  0.19
Rubinstein 1966   27  0.6450  0.0034  0.0632  0.0638  0.0739  0.06
Shebanova 2002   21  0.6523  0.0031  0.0449  0.0445  0.0547  0.04
Smidowicz 1948   2  0.7513  0.012  0.232  0.708  0.512  0.60
Smidowicz 1948b   1  0.771  0.451  0.451  0.755  0.581  0.66
Smith 1975   39  0.5947  0.0016  0.0823  0.1528  0.0825  0.11
Sofronitsky 1949   42  0.5634  0.0043  0.0544  0.0518  0.2028  0.10
Sztompka 1959   34  0.6118  0.0141  0.0537  0.0519  0.2627  0.11
Tomsic 1995   31  0.6219  0.0119  0.0719  0.2419  0.277  0.25
Uninsky 1971   23  0.644  0.069  0.1214  0.2823  0.1510  0.20
Wasowski 1980   8  0.7031  0.0013  0.159  0.3225  0.159  0.22
Random 1   50  0.0151  0.0050  0.0350  0.0328  0.0648  0.04
Random 2   51  -0.0152  0.0051  0.0251  0.0227  0.0651  0.03
Random 3   52  -0.0448  0.0052  0.0252  0.0238  0.0552  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).