for BH-NS binaries, therefore the above models are adequate for [*both*]{} BH-BH and BH-NS binaries. In order to facilitate comparison with previous work, we also evaluated rates using the simplest possible approximation: a restricted post-Newtonian (PN) waveform where the amplitude is truncated at Newtonian order, i.e. $\tilde h(f)\sim \mc^{5/6}
f^{-7/6}/D$, terminated at a fiducial “innermost stable circular orbit” frequency $f_{\rm ISCO}=(G M\pi/c^3)^{-1}6^{-3/2}$. At low mass, the upper limit can be neglected and this approximation corresponds to $\rho \propto \mc^{5/6}$, as stated above: see also Eq. (7) in [@roskb].

![\[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\]**SNR for different signal models**: To illustrate the relatively small differences between the signal models we have adopted, we show the SNR, $\rho(M)$, as a function of total binary mass, $M$, for an equal-mass nonspinning binary at $100 {\, {\rm Mpc}}$, where the SNR is evaluated using a single fiducial aLIGO detector. The colored solid curves show (a) the trivial expression $\rho =\rho_0(M/2.8
  M_\odot)^{5/6}$ with $\rho_0=34.3$ (red), (b) an EOB model (black), PhB model (blue), and PhC model (green), all evaluated for zero spin. The green dotted line shows the PhC model evaluated with near-extremal spin on both objects ($\chi_1=\chi_2=0.998$), while the green dashed line shows PhC with near-extremal spin on one 