Random 1

Performance0-Rank  0-Score1-Rank  1-Score2-Rank  2-Score3-Rank  3-Score3R-Rank  3R-Score4-Rank  4-Score  NED
Ashkenazy 1981   24  0.0213  0.0111  0.099  0.3551  0.0312  0.10
Bacha 1997   17  0.0342  0.0042  0.0442  0.0452  0.0333  0.03
Barbosa 1983   50  -0.0229  0.0045  0.0439  0.0452  0.0246  0.03
Biret 1990   8  0.0453  0.0025  0.0625  0.1351  0.0226  0.05
Block 1995   44  0.0015  0.0132  0.0438  0.0451  0.0337  0.03
Brailowsky 1960   19  0.0328  0.009  0.105  0.3951  0.035  0.11
Chiu 1999   30  0.018  0.0118  0.0819  0.2051  0.0416  0.09
Clidat 1994   34  0.016  0.0223  0.0623  0.1351  0.0324  0.06
Cohen 1997   53  -0.0336  0.0053  0.0253  0.0252  0.0252  0.02
Cortot 1951   7  0.0520  0.0022  0.0821  0.1951  0.0321  0.08
Csalog 1996   22  0.0237  0.0024  0.0622  0.1651  0.0322  0.07
Czerny 1990   10  0.0444  0.0021  0.0720  0.1952  0.0320  0.08
Ezaki 2006   37  0.0034  0.0030  0.0529  0.0552  0.0232  0.03
Ferenczy 1958   46  0.0033  0.0049  0.0349  0.0351  0.0248  0.02
Fliere 1977   42  0.004  0.0212  0.0914  0.2751  0.0315  0.09
Fou 1978   47  -0.0141  0.0044  0.0443  0.0451  0.0238  0.03
Francois 1956   26  0.0232  0.0041  0.0445  0.0452  0.0347  0.03
Grinberg 1951   40  0.0050  0.0052  0.0251  0.0253  0.0250  0.02
Hatto 1993   28  0.0240  0.0048  0.0446  0.0452  0.0244  0.03
Hatto 1997   23  0.0243  0.0047  0.0441  0.0452  0.0234  0.03
Indjic 2001   29  0.0248  0.0050  0.0350  0.0352  0.0251  0.02
Jonas 1947   5  0.0610  0.0110  0.1110  0.3351  0.0311  0.10
Kapell 1951   33  0.0125  0.0038  0.0447  0.0451  0.0341  0.03
Kiepura 1999   20  0.0312  0.0128  0.0528  0.0552  0.0327  0.04
Kushner 1989   13  0.0321  0.0035  0.0437  0.0451  0.0240  0.03
Luisada 1991   9  0.0417  0.0117  0.0815  0.2551  0.0410  0.10
Lushtak 2004   35  0.0118  0.0133  0.0436  0.0451  0.0430  0.04
Magaloff 1978   38  0.0026  0.0020  0.0724  0.1351  0.0323  0.06
Meguri 1997   6  0.059  0.0115  0.0816  0.2551  0.0319  0.09
Milkina 1970   45  0.0024  0.0046  0.0434  0.0451  0.0342  0.03
Mohovich 1999   32  0.0127  0.0039  0.0440  0.0452  0.0239  0.03
Niedzielski 1931   4  0.0619  0.0116  0.0813  0.2851  0.0317  0.09
Ohlsson 1999   18  0.035  0.0213  0.1011  0.3151  0.0313  0.10
Olejniczak 1990   43  0.0039  0.0043  0.0348  0.0352  0.0253  0.02
Osinska 1989   41  0.0051  0.0040  0.0432  0.0451  0.0335  0.03
Rangell 2001   52  -0.0330  0.0029  0.0530  0.0551  0.0431  0.04
Richter 1976   12  0.0322  0.006  0.126  0.3852  0.037  0.11
Rubinstein 1938   49  -0.0211  0.0119  0.0818  0.2050  0.0418  0.09
Rubinstein 1952   15  0.0331  0.007  0.1112  0.3051  0.049  0.11
Rubinstein 1961   27  0.0216  0.014  0.153  0.5251  0.044  0.14
Rubinstein 1966   39  0.0023  0.0014  0.1017  0.2451  0.0414  0.10
Shebanova 2002   36  0.0135  0.0027  0.0527  0.0552  0.0329  0.04
Smidowicz 1948   21  0.0245  0.0036  0.0435  0.0452  0.0343  0.03
Smidowicz 1948b   14  0.0346  0.0026  0.0726  0.1352  0.0325  0.06
Smith 1975   51  -0.023  0.063  0.138  0.3751  0.036  0.11
Sofronitsky 1949   48  -0.0149  0.0051  0.0252  0.0252  0.0249  0.02
Sztompka 1959   16  0.037  0.028  0.107  0.3751  0.038  0.11
Tomsic 1995   3  0.0714  0.015  0.124  0.4651  0.043  0.14
Uninsky 1971   31  0.0138  0.0034  0.0444  0.0451  0.0345  0.03
Wasowski 1980   11  0.0447  0.0031  0.0531  0.0551  0.0328  0.04
Average Tempo   25  0.0252  0.0037  0.0433  0.0451  0.0336  0.03
Random 1   target  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  targettarget  target
Random 2   1  0.191  0.541  0.531  0.751  0.771  0.76
Random 3   2  0.142  0.152  0.342  0.554  0.552  0.55

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).