diff --git a/ifcs2018_journal.tex b/ifcs2018_journal.tex
index 37341f9..bcd8d3d 100644
--- a/ifcs2018_journal.tex
+++ b/ifcs2018_journal.tex
@@ -1046,11 +1046,24 @@ needed in the previous section. Indeed the worst time in this case is only 17~mi
 compared to 3~days in the previous section: this problem is more easily solved than the
 previous one.
 
+{\color{red} % r1.4
+To conclude we have compared our monolithic filters with the FIR Compiler form
+Xilinx. For each experimentation we use the same coefficient set and we compare the
+resources consumption. The table~\ref{tbl:xilinx_resources} exhibits the results.
+The FIR Compiler never use BRAM while our filter use one block. This difference
+can be explain be our wish to have a reconfigurable FIR filter. In our case, we can
+configure the coefficients set without to have to change the FPGA design. With
+the FIR compiler, the coefficients set are given during the FPGA design conception
+so we have to change the coefficients, we need to regenerate the design. The
+difference with the LUT consumption is also related to the reconfigurability
+logic. However the DSP consumption, the most restricted resource, are the same between the FIR compiler end
+our FIR block. Our solutions are as good as the Xilinx implementation.
+
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
 \begin{table}
 \centering
 \caption{Resource consumption compared between the FIR Compiler from Xilinx and our FIR block}
-\label{tbl:area_time_comp}
+\label{tbl:xilinx_resources}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline
 \multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Xilinx} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Our FIR block} \\ \cline{2-7}
@@ -1064,6 +1077,7 @@ MIN/80            & 482     & 0        & 55     & 772       & 1          & 55
 \end{tabular}
 \end{table}
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
+}
 
 \section{Conclusion}
 
diff --git a/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
index c914eef..bb55f51 100644
--- a/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
+++ b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ cascading multiple FIR filters, each with fewer coefficients than found in the m
 ''
 
 {\bf
-I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that      % r1.4 - en attente des résultats
+I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that      % r1.4 - fait
 of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon
 area for a fixed minimum rejection ratio. For non-experts, it might be very
 useful to compare the results of both optimization paths to the performance and
@@ -119,8 +119,10 @@ manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code
 for examination online.
 }
 
-TODO : FIR Compiler et regarder les ressources pour un FIR comparable a ceux monolithiques
-fournis dans l'article (memes coefs et meme nombre de coefs)
+To compare the performance of our FIR filters and the performance of device
+manufacturers generic filter, we have added a paragraph and a table at the
+end of experiments section. We compare the resources consumption with the same
+FIR coefficients set.
 
 {\bf
 Reviewer: 2
@@ -160,16 +162,39 @@ n = 1.
 We have added on Figs 10--16 (now Fig 9(a)--(c)) the templates used to defined
 the bandpass and the bandstop of the filter.
 
-%Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
-%non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
-%au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
-%a la cascade de filtres.
-%AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
-%relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai
-
-JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
-moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
-quand on cascade 5 filtres !
+We are aware of this non equivalence but we think that difference is not due to
+the cascaded filters but due to the definition of rejection criterion on the passband.
+Indeed, in this article we have choose to take the summation of absolute values divide
+by the bandwidth but this criterion is maybe too permissive and when we cascade
+some filters this impact is more important.
+
+However if we change the passband
+criterion by the summation of absolute value in passband, weighting given to the
+passband ripples are too strong and the solver are too restricted to provide
+any interesting solution but the ripples in passband will be minimal. And if we take the maximum absolute value in
+passband, the rejection evaluation are too close form the original criterion and
+the result will not be improved.
+
+In this article, we will highlight the methodology instead of the filter conception.
+Even if our rejection criterion is not the best, our methodology was not impacted
+by this. So to improve the results, we can choose another criterion to be more
+selective in passband but it is not the main objective of our article.
+
+% %Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
+% %non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
+% %au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
+% %a la cascade de filtres.
+% %AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
+% %relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai
+%
+% densité spectrale de la bande passante
+% sum des valeurs absolues / largeur de la bande passante (1/N) vs max dans la bande de coupure
+%
+% JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
+% moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
+% quand on cascade 5 filtres !
+%
+% Dire que la chute n'est pas du à la casacade mais à notre critère de rejection
 
 {\bf
 The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in          % r2.2 - fait
@@ -181,14 +206,17 @@ filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with
 and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
 }
 
-The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
-value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
-the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
-ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
-selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
-% r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
-the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
-within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
+See above: If we choose the maximum absolute value in passband, we penalize the
+case with 10 dB of ripple.
+
+% The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
+% value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
+% the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
+% ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
+% selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
+% % r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
+% the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
+% within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
 
 {\bf
 I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also        % r2.3 -fait
@@ -200,6 +228,8 @@ bandwidth.
 See above: the absolute value within the passband will reject filters with
 excessive ripples, including excessive attenuation, within the passband.
 
+% TODO: test max(stopband) - max(abs(passband))
+
 {\bf
 In addition, I suggest to address the following points:                           % r2.4
 - Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response
@@ -255,6 +285,8 @@ It should be ``minimum''
 AH: Je ne suis pas d'accord, le critère n'est pas le min de la rejection mais le max
 de la magnitude. J'ai corrigé en ce sens.
 
+Juste mettre une phrase pour dire que la mean ne donnait pas de bons résultats
+
 {\bf
 - Page e, line 55, second column: ``takin''                                       % r2.9  - fait
 - Page 3, line 58: ``pessimistic'' should be replaced with ``conservative''       % r2.10 - fait
@@ -267,6 +299,9 @@ All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.
 - Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose       % r2.12 - fait
 these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
 }
+C'est le nombre de coefficients et un taille raisonnable
+Troncature de la pyramide
+
 See below: we have added a better description of $p$ during the transformation explanation.
 ``we introduce $p$ FIR configurations.
 This variable must be defined by the user, it represent the number of different