Richter 1961

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   11  0.778  0.003  0.183  0.6014  0.404  0.49
Ax 1995   4  0.807  0.0012  0.1310  0.4815  0.417  0.44
Bacha 1998   35  0.6453  0.0037  0.0640  0.0621  0.4030  0.15
Barbosa 1983   57  0.4737  0.0052  0.0645  0.0664  0.0451  0.05
BenOr 1989   63  0.3063  0.0057  0.0460  0.0457  0.0563  0.04
Biret 1990   42  0.6219  0.0045  0.0455  0.0446  0.0564  0.04
Brailowsky 1960   28  0.6844  0.0035  0.0641  0.0625  0.1538  0.09
Chiu 1999   44  0.6120  0.0048  0.0454  0.0441  0.0555  0.04
Clidat 1994   7  0.7949  0.0010  0.108  0.5015  0.465  0.48
Cohen 1997   59  0.4355  0.0058  0.0456  0.0444  0.0653  0.05
Cortot 1951   64  0.2032  0.0063  0.0463  0.0459  0.0465  0.04
Csalog 1996   31  0.6756  0.0038  0.0737  0.0737  0.0646  0.06
Czerny 1989   8  0.7842  0.009  0.1121  0.3113  0.3117  0.31
Ezaki 2006   13  0.7611  0.0017  0.1411  0.4525  0.3111  0.37
Falvay 1989   19  0.7415  0.005  0.1416  0.3922  0.2916  0.34
Fiorentino 1962   20  0.7448  0.0021  0.1217  0.3838  0.0928  0.18
Fliere 1977   3  0.823  0.012  0.342  0.614  0.622  0.61
Fou 1978   27  0.6936  0.0026  0.0825  0.2329  0.2024  0.21
Francois 1956   41  0.6252  0.0043  0.0736  0.0729  0.2233  0.12
Goldenweiser 1946   60  0.4045  0.0064  0.0550  0.0554  0.0454  0.04
Gornostaeva 1994   54  0.4940  0.0046  0.0462  0.0444  0.0562  0.04
Groot 1988   36  0.6430  0.0044  0.0735  0.0746  0.0548  0.06
Hatto 1993   18  0.7428  0.0028  0.0728  0.1647  0.0543  0.09
Hatto 1997   22  0.7433  0.0029  0.0730  0.1549  0.0539  0.09
Horszowski 1983   49  0.5943  0.0053  0.0548  0.0536  0.0745  0.06
Indjic 2001   21  0.7410  0.0027  0.0727  0.1757  0.0542  0.09
Katin 1996   24  0.7323  0.0031  0.0826  0.2033  0.1627  0.18
Kiepura 1999   61  0.3925  0.0055  0.0739  0.0742  0.0544  0.06
Korecka 1992   58  0.4539  0.0061  0.0458  0.0455  0.0557  0.04
Kushner 1990   62  0.3834  0.0054  0.0553  0.0547  0.0460  0.04
Lilamand 2001   56  0.4765  0.0059  0.0551  0.0560  0.0461  0.04
Luisada 1990   37  0.6421  0.0014  0.0929  0.1622  0.2426  0.20
Luisada 2008   50  0.5935  0.0041  0.0547  0.0524  0.2732  0.12
Lushtak 2004   30  0.6731  0.0033  0.0731  0.1442  0.0640  0.09
Malcuzynski 1951   26  0.7260  0.0013  0.0912  0.4521  0.3112  0.37
Malcuzynski 1961   40  0.6213  0.0020  0.1219  0.3424  0.2121  0.27
Magaloff 1977   45  0.6127  0.0050  0.0552  0.0551  0.0552  0.05
Magin 1975   48  0.6064  0.0047  0.0461  0.0456  0.0556  0.04
Meguri 1997   55  0.4829  0.0042  0.0642  0.0662  0.0450  0.05
Milkina 1970   25  0.7350  0.0025  0.1120  0.3432  0.1822  0.25
Mohovich 1999   12  0.7626  0.0011  0.109  0.4819  0.378  0.42
Nezu 2005   33  0.6646  0.0015  0.1015  0.4032  0.1920  0.28
Ohlsson 1999   46  0.6161  0.0049  0.0459  0.0456  0.0459  0.04
Olejniczak 1990   43  0.624  0.0136  0.0734  0.0725  0.2431  0.13
Osinska 1989   17  0.7454  0.0016  0.0913  0.4322  0.379  0.40
Perlemuter 1992   52  0.5014  0.0060  0.0364  0.0364  0.0366  0.03
Poblocka 1999   6  0.795  0.016  0.117  0.5514  0.543  0.54
Rangell 2001   16  0.7422  0.0023  0.1022  0.3118  0.4213  0.36
Richter 1960   1  0.951  0.891  0.881  0.921  0.911  0.91
Richter 1961   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Rosen 1989   23  0.7341  0.0032  0.0632  0.1212  0.3725  0.21
Rubinstein 1939   10  0.776  0.0118  0.1114  0.4122  0.3710  0.39
Rubinstein 1952   32  0.6766  0.0030  0.0633  0.1134  0.0937  0.10
Rubinstein 1966   14  0.7538  0.0022  0.1118  0.3624  0.3514  0.35
Rudanovskaya 2007   34  0.6562  0.0040  0.0644  0.0628  0.1934  0.11
Shebanova 2002   2  0.8318  0.004  0.124  0.5814  0.346  0.44
Smith 1975   51  0.5259  0.0056  0.0457  0.0464  0.0367  0.03
Sztompka 1959   53  0.4947  0.0062  0.0549  0.0544  0.0549  0.05
Tanyel 1992   38  0.6351  0.0019  0.1024  0.2530  0.1923  0.22
Tsujii 2005   9  0.7824  0.008  0.116  0.5729  0.2215  0.35
Uninsky 1959   39  0.6316  0.0051  0.0546  0.0558  0.0458  0.04
Vardi 1988   15  0.759  0.0024  0.1223  0.2619  0.3518  0.30
Wasowski 1980   47  0.6012  0.0039  0.0738  0.0715  0.3229  0.15
Zimerman 1975   29  0.672  0.0134  0.0643  0.0628  0.1935  0.11
Average   5  0.8017  0.007  0.185  0.5832  0.1619  0.30
Random 1   66  -0.0157  0.0066  0.0266  0.029  0.4241  0.09
Random 2   65  0.0067  0.0065  0.0265  0.025  0.5436  0.10
Random 3   67  -0.1158  0.0067  0.0167  0.0116  0.3347  0.06
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).