Although the scientific presentation is excellent, a serious issue has been found by the reviewer in the calculations, which affects your conclusions. Therefore, a major revision is needed. Detailed comments are annotated in the reviewed manuscript and please address all theses issues carefully and point by point in your revision. This issue is most likely the reason why the "psd" results are biased. The correct formulas to use are in two of your references (Frehlich et al. and Sharman et al.) including a maximum likelihood (ML) EDR estimation method from the latter reference. You can find the reviewer's discussion of these topics in the comments annotated on page 13 (see line 5) of the manuscript. The correction will be very important in that the results of your simulations now show bias in the standard psd approach, which will expectedly be corrected. It is noted that this standard approach has already much less scatter than the new suggested method. (See for example, Fig 8.). The ML method could further reduce the scatter. Nevertheless, the corrections are expected to upset your conclusions and they will probably show that your method - in its current form - is generally inferior to existing methods. The revision thus needs elaboration of the problem identified, a corrected implementation and a careful renewed analysis of the merits and limitations of your method in the manuscript.

AMT appreciates the efforts of the authors to compare their extended method to existing methods. Indeed, your proposal has some merit as described in detail and well discussed. My only remaining concern is in the abstract, as it does not describe any results of the manuscript, nor its discussion. Potential reader's interest would be raised when the abstract was extended with a few sentences on results and discussion.

In particular, it should be stated that application of the method appears useful and complementary to existing methods, particularly for short signals. Also, state that further work on bias assessment and removal is needed.

The further modifications indeed provide a more balanced account of the work presented in the light of existing methods.