Application-Specific Integrated Circuit of an Inter-IC Sound Digital Filter for Audio Systems
and Cuauhtémoc Aguilera-GaliciaRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript, the authors propose a hardware architecture for a configurable FIR filter and a noise cancellation filter with I2C communication with configuration features. The established theory is solid and the experiment is reliable. I thus recommend an acceptance.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
With this letter, we send you the corrected version of our paper:
" ASIC Implementation of an I2S-Compliant Configurable FIR Filter for Audio Systems"
The authors would like to thank Reviewer No.1 for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions of all the Reviewers. The valuable feedback and suggested improvements helped make the presentation of the document more concise and detailed. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated the required changes.
In the attached file you can find the details of the implemented changes.
Sincerely yours,
Rene Davila-Velarde, Ricardo Ramos-Contreras, Luis Pizano-Escalante, Cuauhtémoc Aguilera-Galicia (Authors)
Omar Longoria-Gandara (Corresponding author).
Email of the corresponding author:
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a hardware architecture for a configurable FIR filter and a noise cancellation filter with I2C communication with configuration features. By implementing a vector-vector arithmetic logic unit, the system is optimized to perform 1-cycle convolution operations. Several detailed concerns are provided below.
1. The novelty and advantages of this work are not clear, the authors could further justify the advantage of this work by comparing the related published ones.
2. In Figure 12, the power curve of the band-pass filter 1 looks like a low-pass one. Please explain the reason.
3. The bandwidths and insertion losses of the designed filters could be provided.
4. Some of the tables and figures are not clear. For example, Figs. 7 and 12, please improve.
English is fine.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
With this letter, we send you the corrected version of our paper:
" ASIC Implementation of an I2S-Compliant Configurable FIR Filter for Audio Systems"
The authors would like to thank Reviewer No.2 for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions. The valuable feedback and suggested improvements helped make the presentation of the document more concise and detailed. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated the required changes.
In the attached file, we provide our responses to the comments that Reviewer No. 2 kindly made to us.
Sincerely yours,
Rene Davila-Velarde, Ricardo Ramos-Contreras, Luis Pizano-Escalante, Cuauhtémoc Aguilera-Galicia (Authors)
Omar Longoria-Gandara (Corresponding author).
Email of the corresponding author:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work titled "ASIC Implementation of an I2S-Compliant Configurable FIR Filter for Audio Systems" is a work with an interesting content for the readers of the magazine since it tries to solve the problems associated with digital audio systems. Taking into account what has been indicated, the reviewer proposes the article for Major Review due to the following items.
1. The title "ASIC Implementation of an I2S-Compliant Configurable FIR Filter for Audio Systems" is not suitable. You should not include acronyms in it.
2. The abstract must be modified to give an overview of the work carried out, including the objectives and a brief summary of the results obtained.
3. Every time an acronym appears in the text, the authors must indicate its meaning at least the first time.
4. The bibliographic search is not extensive (6 references), one of which is from the authors themselves.
5. The format of the last reference must be adapted to the guidelines of authors of the journal.
6. The structure of the article is chaotic, they must check that the introduction is a bibliographical review with a coherence and description of the problem to be dealt with.
7.The authors have enough bibligraphic material and guides from the journal itself to do a better job examples:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(20), 10248; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010248
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(19), 3995; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9193995
8. Section 4. Discussion of the results is missing.
9. The article should have, at least, the following sections: Title; Abstract; 1. Introduction; 2. material and methods (which would include what is indicated in section 2 Section 3, Section 4 and part of Section 5 ); 3. Results and their discussion; 4. Conclusions
10. In general, all the sections and in particular section 2. Noise cancellation algorithms should be explained in greater depth.
11. Sections 2 and 3 are merely descriptive.
12. The architecture of every Verilog module must be described in this document as the reference is not an indexed journal.
13. When reviewing reference 6, it is observed that a large part of this work is the translation and compilation of the work "Filtro digital FIR adaptativo y configurable", to adapt this, it must be adapted to the format of a scientific article.
14. Section 5 is the most refined, but they must carry out a more exhaustive analysis of the graphs, analyzing in depth the results of figure 12.
15. In the conclusions section, the authors should talk about the applicability based on the objectives set out in the work. They should not give a single conclusion of the work. The document must be modified in depth.
I hope that all my indications will improve the draft.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers:
With this letter, we send you the corrected version of our paper:
" ASIC Implementation of an I2S-Compliant Configurable FIR Filter for Audio Systems"
The authors would like to thank Reviewer No.3 for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the positive and constructive comments and suggestions. The valuable feedback and suggested improvements helped make the presentation of the document more concise and detailed. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated the required changes.
In the attached file, we provide our responses to the comments that Reviewer No. 3 kindly made to us.
Sincerely yours,
Rene Davila-Velarde, Ricardo Ramos-Contreras, Luis Pizano-Escalante, Cuauhtémoc Aguilera-Galicia (Authors)
Omar Longoria-Gandara (Corresponding author).
Email of the corresponding author:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for the revisions. My concerns have been addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has improved significantly, so the reviewer proposes that it be accepted as follows.
