Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
PhD D: Mmm . You Yeah . We are playing we are also playing , trying to put other spectral subtraction mmm , in the code . Um , it would be a very simple spectral subtraction , on the um , NAME_1 energies which I already tested but without the um frame dropping actually , and I think it 's important to have frame dropping if you use spectral subtraction . PhD F: Is it is spectral subtraction typically done on the after the NAME_1 , uh , scaling or is it done on the FFT bins ? PhD D: Um , PhD F: Does it matter , or ? PhD D: I d I don't know . Well , it 's both both uh , cases can i PhD F: Oh . PhD D: Yeah . So - some of the proposal , uh , we 're doing this on the bin on the FFT bins , PhD F: Hmm . PhD D: others on the um , NAME_1 energies . You can do both , but I

Summary:
1. There was a discussion between PhDs about the effectiveness of doing spectral subtraction on NAME_1 energies or FFT bins.
2. They agreed that both methods had different advantages, but were unsure of which one was superior.
3. Additionally, the use of spectral subtraction in a two-stage speech enhancement technique was discussed as a way to improve SNR in poorer conditions.
4. Professor NAME_2 also recommended combining spectral subtraction with signal subspace for further improvement.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain