Dear Dr. Vázquez-Martín,

In your response to reviewers file please follow the outline specified by ACP:

Before submitting a revised version of their manuscript for publication in ACP, the authors should have answered the referee comments and relevant short comments cumulatively or individually in one or more author comments. The author comments should be structured in a clear and easy-to-follow sequence: (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes,  a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf must be submitted, uploaded as a supplement to the author comment.

I find the three point process greatly accelerates reviewer and editorial consideration.

Thank you

Dear Dr. Vázquez-Martín,

I am pleased to accept the manuscript subject to technical corrections. I would first like to commend the two reviewers for their careful consideration and constructive comments, and also to the authors for the point-by-point response. I thought it particularly interesting that both reviewers noted the lack of a strong fall speed dependence on orientation, despite the obvious affect on projected area. There is some speculation in the manuscript about why this might be the case, that the snowflakes are in a stage of transition in orientation, but adding some further discussion in a prominent place about this being a potential area of future research might be worthwhile.

Overall, the manuscript should be prove a valuable contribution to future studies that rely upon relationships between mass, area, diameter, and fallspeed, particularly of smaller precipitation particles < 1 mm. The use of a newly developed instrument is particularly commendable.

There are a few technical adjustments I would like to see prior to publication. Line 30 has a repeated sentence.
Certain figures use exponential notation where decimal notation would suffice and be easier to read. Also please make sure that where logarithmic base 10 plots are used at least two ticks label the orders of magnitude.
l. 184 "random noise". What is this? To be truthful, the entire study could be attributed to "random noise". Can a better explanation be provided?
Avoid vague statements such as "reasonably well", "more", or "good correlation". David Schultz has an excellent book on how to write qualitative comparisons more precisely
Section 3.4 starts with a statement about what the section show, which a reviewer requested to be removed.

Best regards,

Tim Garrett