Reply to ``Comment on `Monoclinic phase of PbZr0.52Ti0.48O3 ceramics: Raman and phenomenological thermodynamic studies' ''

In the preceding Comment, Frantti et al. criticized our work [Phys. Rev. B 61, 14 283 (2000)] dealing with the tetragonal-monoclinic phase transition recently observed in PbTiO₃-PbZrO₃ system ceramics. Their main claim is that the temperature-dependent behavior of the A₁(TO) subpeaks does not provide any evidence of this phase transition. In this Reply, we not only discuss the reasons that justify the observation of the phase transition by examining the changes in the behavior of the A₁(TO) subpeaks, but also respond to some queries pointed out by those authors.