Active Noise Control System Based on the Improved Equation Error Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper reports a theoretical study about active noise control. The topic is very actual, modern and needed in the present living condition. I have nothing to say about the construction of the paper, while I should recommend the author to careful re-edit the text and improve some communicative parts. Details are reported to the authors.

English writing style is poor, please improve it.

Conclusions are too short and they appear to be written very fast. Please spend more time and space on them by summarizing better the work done, why it is important, what are its limitations and future developments.

Contextualization of the work is of vital importance for a paper’s success. That’s why it is important to clearly mention all possible application of the submitted work and all the relevant and recent references connected to the work. Please review the text searching for more recent references, and spend more time on possible real application of your work. A suggestion I give to the authors is at the beginning, while dealing with mitigations, consider more possibilities. Example: not only barriers, but modern barriers made of sonic crystals (Fredianelli, L., Del Pizzo, A., & Licitra, G. (2019). Recent developments in sonic crystals as barriers for road traffic noise mitigation. Environments, 6(2), 14; Koussa, F., Defrance, J., Jean, P., & Blanc-Benon, P. (2013). Acoustical efficiency of a sonic crystal assisted noise barrier. Acta acustica united with acustica, 99(3), 399-409.)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Active Noise Control System based on the Improved Equation Error Model” (ID: acoustics-1047936). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see document attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Active Noise Control System based on the Improved Equation Error Model” (ID: acoustics-1047936). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the authors should read their article carefully at least once before submitting it to any journal. The sentence in line 6 (“Comparison of ...”) is unclear. Looks like the rest of the sentence is missing. The first section (Introduction) should be numbered as 1, not 0. Lots of minor English mistakes and typos, e.g.:

Line 14: "can be attenuation" - I suppose there should be "attenuated". Line 15: "ap proach". Line 18: "a sound waves". Line 26: "a hybrid systems". Line 30: "em- ploying". Line 32: "includes". Line 93: "the step size are"...

There are many more to list, but let me just focus your attention on this issue, as the proper quality of your scientific writing is concerned.

If there are scalar values and vectors in the same equation, it would be better to emphasize which ones are the vectors; they may be in bold in contrast to scalar values.

Text included in Figs. 6-7 is hard to read. Font size should be similar to that of a figure caption.

I cannot see the noise reduction levels in Fig. 10. It should be presented as a difference between noise level without and with control. Then, it would be easier to compare the noise reduction for EE and improved EE (the difference seems to be small at the high frequencies). Or, the figure has to be titled in a different way not to confuse the reader.

The conclusions seem not to follow the discussion. Authors wrote the conclusions section like the computational complexity is an advantage of the proposed approach, but this approach is rather complex. Seems like the advantages of the proposed approach are rather a noise reduction level and a fast(er) convergence.

The “Author Contributions” and “Conflicts of Interest” are missing. There are 5 authors of the article so the contribution of each person should be clearly stated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Active Noise Control System based on the Improved Equation Error Model” (ID: acoustics-1047936). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is now ready for being published as the authors correctly assessed all the issues previously emerged.

Before final publications, please correctly check references, as there are many errors occurring. E.g., reference 3 is https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/6/2/14

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Active Noise Control System based on the Improved Equation Error Model” (ID: acoustics-1047936). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications have been minimal.They could have done a bit more of effort.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your letter comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Active Noise Control System based on the Improved Equation Error Model” (ID: acoustics-1047936). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf