I finished reading the thesis in its entirety just now.
There may have been a few interesting ideas buried in there-- perhaps enough to serve as a jumping-off point for more rigorous, methodologically sound research.
I did find myself befuddled by some rather curious assertions-- for instance, I still can't work out what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from harmonic and intermodulation distortion measurements wherein designed-in negative feedback is defeated and open-loop distortion products measured.
I also think the conclusion about the harmonics of the cochlear hairs' own vibration "masking" harmonic distortion products-- but only in certain proportions-- read as rather tenuous and perhaps specious. I admit that I did not follow all of the literature cited in the end-notes; perhaps this is based upon sound physiological (or psychological) reasearch with which I'm just not yet acquainted.
Finally, there were points where the writing simply wasn't clear to me-- not in a "technically, this is over my head" way so much as a "my brain is having difficulty parsing the sentence structure" way. Several spelling and grammar errors throughout, too, not to mention unorthodox and inconsistent abbreviations: "SPLs," "SPL's" "sound pressure level" "sound pressure levels," "S.P.L." and "S.P.L's" were all used, to my recollection, at some point. If I were on the committee, I would not have let the thesis pass defense with those errors.
Still, a few thought-provoking ideas within.