You really can't blame a manufacture to present a counterpoint to what they might feel as a misrepresentation of their products.
It is a misrepresentation in the ad to imply that any DAC, theirs or others, can remotely reproduce a -144 dB signal. As I explained in the other thread, the measurement they are showing indicates lots of other noise sources that are higher amplitude than the test tone. So whatever they think of my work, is beside the point. They are using measurements that they either don't understand or intentionally hope to mislead the reader.
Let's show this in a graph where I replicate their test conditions but using the superbly measuring RME ADI-2 DAC. For now, focus on the left side only:
We see a very clean 1 kHz tone despite hugely small signal (rightmost bit of 24-bit signal). None of the extra noise products are visible that Schiit shows with their DAC in the same situation.
But now let's look at what that same "sine wave" looks without transformation by FFT on the right. We see that it is nothing but random noise. That 1 kHz tone is somewhere in there but is dwarfed by noise. So our DAC here despite being worlds better than Yggdrasil, still cannot remotely reproduce a 24-bit signal. Laws of physics simply do not allow it.
How does the FFT then show such clean 1 kHz tone? That is because of "signal processing." The FFT is able to provide huge amount of noise reduction by spreading the noise across the full spectrum. The tone however stays put (i.e. not reduced) so we see it clearly.
Conclusions
The measurements shown by Schiit are a) not that good anyway and b) are hugely misleading to readers. No DAC in the world at room temperature and with audio bandwidth can reproduce a signal at the bottom of a 24-bit PCM sample. Various noise sources in electronics including our measurement gear make that a huge impossibility.
This is why my/industry standard linearity tests stop at just -90 dB.