Brooko. You seem way more emotional about it all than you claim me to be. Nobody called you and idiot. I haven't moved the bar as you say and I haven't even made nearly as many posts as you seem to imply (two, in sequence actually before you started attacking me, no more other than a couple many pages back about a specific issue where I was actually playing along). I'm talking about the issue (which IS the credibility off this work) at hand and you've managed to turn it into a discussion about me, and now you.
I made one inquiry and only one because I genuinely wanted to know if there is a real publication so I could see it. I guess there's not. That's moving the bar every time I get new information? One post and one request? You seem to have me confused with someone else who may have commented before that.
If they aren't boasting about peer reviewed work then great, but effectively others, including you have been. The prestige of the publisher (propped up only by the peer review process associated with it) or the fact that some research is funded is not relevant to evaluating the specific claim. It's a conference proceeding. Half of what conferences exist for is to bounce unproven ideas off peers. You don't want me to ask about credible review yet you invoke prestige of the publisher. None of us are expert enough in this field, so of course credible review matters. And yes, the intro smells very funny, un-academic. That doesn't mean it's automatically wrong. You don't have to be academic to be right.
But let's keep the jargon out of it. Pressure is pressure and in the end all there is is pressure on, possibly different parts of, the ear at different times. There is nothing else. Calling some of that "sound" and some of that "pneumatic" creates a sense that something is understood when it provides questionable actual new detail. If this "pneumatic" stuff is well defined as some particular pattern of pressure, ok, but let's understand that we're still talking about a pattern of pressure, and that can be expressed as spl vs frequency. There is no ppl vs spl except to the extent some frequencies are in-naudible, or possibly to the extent we're talking about pressure differences on different parts of the ear. Other than than that, it's all just pl.
I was and am very receptive to the (either gregorio or castle's I forgot) argument that pressure at sub-bass frequency might not be heard. But if we're just talking about sub-bass volume, then let's say that.