/r9trip/ - The Complete Robot

>>892
Rhythm-Melody is still solely a test for rhythm, albeit in the context of a melody.

To rank my scores highest to lowest:
Rhythm-Melody
Instruments (Timbre)
Rhythm
Loudness
Melody
Pitch
Accent
Speed
Tuning

Timbre is related to little else in the test.
I placed Rhythm above Loudness seeing as I scored higher on Rhythm-Melody, to which Rhythm is related, and lower on Accent, to which Loudness is related as well as Rhythm.
Melody tests for the sequence of different notes.
Pitch is a test for the pitch of a single note.
I placed Accent higher than Speed/Tempo simply because Accent is related to Rhythm and Loudness which I scored higher on.
Speed/Tempo is related to little else on the test, but if you were to reduce all 9 of these metrics to only 2 (RQ and MQ), Speed/Tempo would contribute more to the former. I suspect this factors in to the higher RQ scores of Africans, as one of the best ways to judge speed is to move with the music. To explain why movement works to judge speed/tempo, try walking to the pace of various pieces of music. Those which are too slow cause you to lose balance in stride. Those which are too quick, and you struggle to move quickly enough, over-exert yourself and possibly snap your shit up. Physical expression of music is predominant in Africans.
Tuning was by far the most difficult. It was a test for your recognition of change in pitch - or lack thereof - of a single note within a chord. Often, both sample sounds were dissonant regardless of whether they were different or the same.

So yeah. If it were reduced to 2 metrics, my RQ would be higher than MQ…
yet they never let me play percussion -__-

lost my trip, posting to get it to stick again.
why doesn't 8chan have autofill like the old country

>>893
I will work on converting these scores into indexes in due course, if you could clarify which subtests you regard to be subsumable under rythm and musical ability, respectively. I'm too tired to decipher your textwall, though if I'm interpreting this rightly and I'm likely not, you regard speed/tempo, rythm, rythm-melody, and accent to be rythmic qualities?

Although RQ>MQ in this individual case it does not necessarily imply negritude. This is because:
- profile will vary among individuals within a single group as well as a group
- your scores for each are so exceptional, that you would still be >99th percentile for negroid musical ability, making a more appropriate comparison still the Europid and Mongol ranges; your MQ I imagine to be close to the Mongolian average just at a glance

Maybe if I have time in the coming week, I will attempt this test myself.

>>899
OK, of the 9 subtests, I consider the following to be.

Rhythm:
-Rhythm
-Rhythm-Melody
-Accent
-Speed (Tempo)

Melody:
-Melody
-Tuning
-Instruments (Timbre)
-Pitch

Forget about factoring Loudness into either of them.

That gives you 2 scores, each out of 72, for both Rhythm and Melody.

So mine would be
Rhythm: 63
Melody: 61.5

Well damn.
Not so atypical for a European after all.

>>906
As raw scores these suffice, but I wanted to convert them into RQ/MQ indexes.

Using the formula

[u][cumulative sum of composite sub-test score][/u]
[cumulative sum of maximium sub-test score]
x 9(sum[max_sub-test_score])

63/72 x 162 = 141.75
61.5/72 x 162 = 138.37
Rounded, 142 and 138 respectively.

>>917
at the end of the day it really doesn't matter how you convert them.
I don't know what the RQ/MQ tests you previously found scores for were marked out of - they probably weren't marked out of 162.
besides, more likely than not they were tested for by different metrics, making a like-for-like comparison difficult.
I highly doubt that in the RQ/MQ tests you were referencing that I would have got anywhere near as high as 142/138.

fwiw we may as well convert them into percentages.
n*(100/72)

>>917
okay, admittedly your method has merit as far as comparing to the grading within this test, that is, in comparing to this scale:

Basic: 0-89.5
Good: 90-103.5
Very Good: 104-116.5
Outstanding: 117-134.5
Superior: 135-162

>>926
No, but for this test that is the maximum cumulative score for all sub-tests, and it's on that basis that we formulate a relative index, as it would be in the calculation for any psychometric test.

>>928
Without converting from the total composite score of 72:

Basic: 0-39.5
Good: 40-46
Very Good: 46.5-51.5
Outstanding: 52-59.5
Superior: 60-72

>>1794
>>1798
Thanks for doing the test.
Good to see you scoring above average…
and below me.
hue

Also

>>1798
>Soulmates <3

fuck off

>>1802
>>1803

You can't handle our love, gtfo Mossyboy

>>1804
Oops forgot my trip

>>1825
History cleared, apologies for no trip.