Dear Editor,

again, we are grateful for the constructive comments we received from the referees, and are happy to follow up on the suggestion of referee B to present the absolute rates in a clearer way.

For this, we had two sentences in the paragraph extending over pages 2 and 3 in the formatted version ("A total photon pair detection rate....") that covers the discussion about absolute pair rates:

After the sentence mentioning the absolute instantaneous pair rate ("...increases to r_p=7700/sec, with g_SI^(2)=54+-7."), we inserted the sentence: "This corresponds to an average detected pair rate of 592/sec including the time during which the pump beams are off." which should clarify the rates after consideration of the duty cycle of the experiment.

A statement about loss-corrected in-principle available pair rates is made at the end of this paragraph; we added the following sentence: "Correcting for the detector efficiency on both signal and idler modes, we infer average  and instantaneous rates of usable photon pairs coupled into the single mode fibers of about 3700/sec and 48000/sec, respectively."

We feel that correcting for anything else than detector losses (losses in the vacuum window, filter losses etc) would not really be appropriate.

We also edited the exact affiliation names to meet the requirement of our host institutions, and fixed names in reference 19.

The length of the manuscript should still meet the requirements by Physical Review letters.

With this, we hope to have appropriately addressed the suggestions raised by the referee, and look forward for your consideration.

With Best Regards on behalf of all authors,

Christian Kurtsiefer