Random 2

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   31  -0.0721  0.0037  0.0537  0.0553  0.0237  0.03
Bacha 1997   40  -0.0828  0.0038  0.0632  0.0653  0.0230  0.03
Barbosa 1983   43  -0.0819  0.0016  0.0818  0.2153  0.0220  0.06
Biret 1990   41  -0.083  0.0320  0.0725  0.1153  0.0225  0.05
Block 1995   28  -0.0614  0.0048  0.0349  0.0353  0.0250  0.02
Brailowsky 1960   46  -0.0932  0.0045  0.0444  0.0453  0.0232  0.03
Chiu 1999   51  -0.1129  0.0052  0.0252  0.0253  0.0248  0.02
Clidat 1994   52  -0.1135  0.0046  0.0541  0.0553  0.0234  0.03
Cohen 1997   47  -0.0942  0.0049  0.0348  0.0353  0.0251  0.02
Cortot 1951   53  -0.1120  0.0050  0.0350  0.0353  0.0252  0.02
Csalog 1996   38  -0.0736  0.0035  0.0442  0.0453  0.0246  0.03
Czerny 1990   15  -0.0525  0.0011  0.0913  0.2853  0.0216  0.07
Ezaki 2006   13  -0.0415  0.0015  0.109  0.3853  0.026  0.09
Ferenczy 1958   12  -0.0434  0.0021  0.0722  0.1353  0.0223  0.05
Fliere 1977   26  -0.0645  0.0025  0.0623  0.1353  0.0222  0.05
Fou 1978   7  -0.0212  0.007  0.235  0.4653  0.024  0.10
Francois 1956   48  -0.107  0.0147  0.0446  0.0453  0.0247  0.03
Grinberg 1951   19  -0.0522  0.0010  0.0912  0.2853  0.0214  0.07
Hatto 1993   20  -0.0543  0.0030  0.0540  0.0553  0.0242  0.03
Hatto 1997   24  -0.0641  0.0031  0.0728  0.0753  0.0226  0.04
Indjic 2001   25  -0.0631  0.0032  0.0827  0.0853  0.0227  0.04
Jonas 1947   32  -0.074  0.0240  0.0536  0.0553  0.0236  0.03
Kapell 1951   29  -0.0617  0.0033  0.0447  0.0453  0.0238  0.03
Kiepura 1999   49  -0.1023  0.0023  0.0621  0.1353  0.0221  0.05
Kushner 1989   23  -0.0638  0.0013  0.0815  0.2553  0.0215  0.07
Luisada 1991   27  -0.0616  0.0012  0.0817  0.2253  0.0212  0.07
Lushtak 2004   50  -0.1040  0.0051  0.0251  0.0253  0.0249  0.02
Magaloff 1978   17  -0.0510  0.0118  0.0816  0.2453  0.0213  0.07
Meguri 1997   42  -0.0811  0.0144  0.0634  0.0653  0.0244  0.03
Milkina 1970   14  -0.0537  0.0022  0.0720  0.1753  0.0218  0.06
Mohovich 1999   11  -0.0433  0.009  0.127  0.4453  0.028  0.09
Niedzielski 1931   36  -0.076  0.0127  0.0635  0.0653  0.0235  0.03
Ohlsson 1999   6  -0.0249  0.008  0.1211  0.3353  0.0211  0.08
Olejniczak 1990   33  -0.0727  0.0034  0.0445  0.0453  0.0245  0.03
Osinska 1989   45  -0.0950  0.0024  0.0624  0.1253  0.0224  0.05
Rangell 2001   8  -0.038  0.0119  0.0919  0.2052  0.0219  0.06
Richter 1976   3  0.0039  0.005  0.253  0.5253  0.025  0.10
Rubinstein 1938   44  -0.0913  0.0053  0.0253  0.0253  0.0253  0.02
Rubinstein 1952   5  -0.0226  0.003  0.206  0.4453  0.029  0.09
Rubinstein 1961   16  -0.0524  0.0028  0.0631  0.0653  0.0243  0.03
Rubinstein 1966   18  -0.0547  0.0029  0.0729  0.0753  0.0229  0.04
Shebanova 2002   30  -0.0730  0.0014  0.0810  0.3453  0.0210  0.08
Smidowicz 1948   34  -0.0751  0.0041  0.0633  0.0653  0.0241  0.03
Smidowicz 1948b   37  -0.0746  0.0042  0.0538  0.0553  0.0240  0.03
Smith 1975   4  -0.019  0.014  0.224  0.4953  0.023  0.10
Sofronitsky 1949   9  -0.035  0.016  0.228  0.4153  0.027  0.09
Sztompka 1959   10  -0.0444  0.0017  0.0914  0.2753  0.0217  0.07
Tomsic 1995   39  -0.0848  0.0039  0.0630  0.0653  0.0239  0.03
Uninsky 1971   21  -0.0552  0.0026  0.0526  0.1053  0.0228  0.04
Wasowski 1980   22  -0.0518  0.0036  0.0539  0.0553  0.0231  0.03
Average Tempo   35  -0.0753  0.0043  0.0443  0.0453  0.0233  0.03
Random 1   1  0.431  0.701  0.691  0.841  0.861  0.85
Random 2   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 3   2  0.142  0.142  0.672  0.781  0.812  0.79

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).