Rangell 2001

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   14  0.7144  0.0015  0.1614  0.5933  0.0917  0.23
Ax 1995   29  0.6549  0.0035  0.0837  0.0860  0.0553  0.06
Bacha 1998   39  0.6259  0.0043  0.0646  0.0629  0.1637  0.10
Barbosa 1983   48  0.598  0.0333  0.0935  0.0947  0.0643  0.07
BenOr 1989   33  0.6342  0.0026  0.0928  0.3241  0.0731  0.15
Biret 1990   34  0.6252  0.0045  0.1133  0.1143  0.0640  0.08
Brailowsky 1960   45  0.6050  0.0048  0.0742  0.0759  0.0549  0.06
Chiu 1999   49  0.5823  0.0051  0.0551  0.0540  0.0655  0.05
Clidat 1994   32  0.6445  0.0022  0.1121  0.4044  0.0722  0.17
Cohen 1997   63  0.4861  0.0062  0.0460  0.0436  0.0659  0.05
Cortot 1951   61  0.4943  0.0060  0.0555  0.054  0.5723  0.17
Csalog 1996   28  0.6527  0.0021  0.1222  0.3836  0.0821  0.17
Czerny 1989   27  0.6546  0.0034  0.1034  0.1060  0.0541  0.07
Ezaki 2006   11  0.7235  0.0016  0.1913  0.6126  0.2811  0.41
Falvay 1989   5  0.762  0.105  0.254  0.7325  0.308  0.47
Fiorentino 1962   37  0.6230  0.0041  0.0839  0.0850  0.0746  0.07
Fliere 1977   12  0.7215  0.0114  0.2211  0.6425  0.357  0.47
Fou 1978   21  0.6721  0.0029  0.1029  0.2839  0.0827  0.15
Francois 1956   57  0.5465  0.0052  0.0457  0.0460  0.0463  0.04
Goldenweiser 1946   62  0.4828  0.0063  0.0649  0.0639  0.0648  0.06
Gornostaeva 1994   59  0.5341  0.0038  0.0552  0.0533  0.0947  0.07
Groot 1988   47  0.6054  0.0050  0.0743  0.0762  0.0460  0.05
Hatto 1993   3  0.7612  0.013  0.313  0.7815  0.504  0.62
Hatto 1997   1  0.781  0.381  0.371  0.8014  0.551  0.66
Horszowski 1983   50  0.5757  0.0059  0.0553  0.0526  0.2336  0.11
Indjic 2001   2  0.777  0.042  0.262  0.7915  0.483  0.62
Katin 1996   35  0.6234  0.0044  0.0741  0.0749  0.0652  0.06
Kiepura 1999   58  0.5318  0.0154  0.0464  0.0462  0.0364  0.03
Korecka 1992   52  0.5636  0.0055  0.0458  0.0442  0.0756  0.05
Kushner 1990   40  0.6222  0.0024  0.0831  0.2633  0.0930  0.15
Lilamand 2001   55  0.5547  0.0056  0.0461  0.0438  0.0657  0.05
Luisada 1990   51  0.5766  0.0049  0.0650  0.0657  0.0558  0.05
Luisada 2008   41  0.6251  0.0036  0.0648  0.0631  0.1738  0.10
Lushtak 2004   8  0.723  0.098  0.219  0.6416  0.476  0.55
Malcuzynski 1951   13  0.7240  0.0013  0.1812  0.6441  0.0719  0.21
Malcuzynski 1961   10  0.7217  0.017  0.277  0.6726  0.2512  0.41
Magaloff 1977   60  0.5231  0.0058  0.0459  0.0457  0.0561  0.04
Magin 1975   17  0.6820  0.0023  0.1023  0.3630  0.1616  0.24
Meguri 1997   31  0.645  0.0610  0.1625  0.3510  0.3814  0.36
Milkina 1970   26  0.6538  0.0031  0.1032  0.2640  0.0928  0.15
Mohovich 1999   24  0.6648  0.0025  0.1020  0.4354  0.0626  0.16
Nezu 2005   9  0.7211  0.019  0.238  0.6624  0.3110  0.45
Ohlsson 1999   19  0.6839  0.0028  0.1024  0.3650  0.0629  0.15
Olejniczak 1990   23  0.6714  0.0132  0.1430  0.2736  0.0832  0.15
Osinska 1989   7  0.7210  0.0211  0.1810  0.6432  0.1615  0.32
Perlemuter 1992   54  0.5558  0.0057  0.0554  0.0526  0.1539  0.09
Poblocka 1999   15  0.7032  0.0018  0.1317  0.4958  0.0524  0.16
Rangell 2001   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Richter 1960   30  0.6426  0.0019  0.1119  0.4413  0.499  0.46
Richter 1961   25  0.664  0.0712  0.1815  0.5610  0.595  0.57
Rosen 1989   36  0.6224  0.0037  0.0838  0.0840  0.0745  0.07
Rubinstein 1939   42  0.6129  0.0040  0.0647  0.0643  0.0751  0.06
Rubinstein 1952   44  0.6033  0.0047  0.0745  0.0753  0.0654  0.06
Rubinstein 1966   43  0.6163  0.0046  0.0936  0.0955  0.0544  0.07
Rudanovskaya 2007   56  0.5437  0.0061  0.0462  0.0460  0.0462  0.04
Shebanova 2002   6  0.749  0.036  0.176  0.708  0.592  0.64
Smith 1975   53  0.5655  0.0053  0.0556  0.0541  0.0750  0.06
Sztompka 1959   46  0.6013  0.0139  0.0744  0.0736  0.0842  0.07
Tanyel 1992   16  0.7025  0.0017  0.1516  0.5535  0.0918  0.22
Tsujii 2005   4  0.766  0.054  0.235  0.7330  0.2113  0.39
Uninsky 1959   18  0.6816  0.0127  0.0826  0.3350  0.0633  0.14
Vardi 1988   20  0.6819  0.0020  0.1218  0.4741  0.0720  0.18
Wasowski 1980   38  0.6256  0.0042  0.0840  0.0830  0.2235  0.13
Zimerman 1975   22  0.6753  0.0030  0.1027  0.3245  0.0634  0.14
Random 1   66  -0.0660  0.0065  0.0265  0.0241  0.0465  0.03
Random 2   64  0.0362  0.0064  0.0463  0.041  0.6125  0.16
Random 3   65  -0.0664  0.0066  0.0166  0.0160  0.0366  0.02

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).