I don't trust such data as far as I can throw it. Who knows what is used to measure these products and the average noise floor of the ADCs used? That may be the limiting factor than what the DACs are doing.
Regardless, I am not sure what your battle is about. I publish tons of data in reviews. Full graphs are provided with respect to levels (IMD) and frequency (THD vs Frequency). My concluding remarks are comprehensive and don't at all rely on a single SINAD number. Excellent SINAD numbers do in general lead to excellence elsewhere. It usually indicates a design that was verified using careful measurements. It is not an accident to be random and separate from other measurements.
They use a proprietary setup which they designed and engineered. It's documented on the site. I have found that their measurements and third party measurements tend to align well, and have spent a number of hours comparing them. I find them particularly useful because each product has
hundreds of measurements all saved and easily accessible--THD, multitones, single tones, CCIF, digital input level, voltage output level, SMPTE. It is simply a tremendous resource for understanding product behavior in detail, and teasing out what is meaningful and what is not.
I don't have any particular battle, except my ongoing complaint about the emphasis on THD+N at either 2V or whatever maximum level can be squeezed out, if it won't put out 2V. THD+N is a single very lossy measure of a device's performance. Unfortunately, it's also very easily digestible and misleading (especially when transposed to the mysterious SINAD). See, e.g.,
https://superbestaudiofriends.org/i...-of-6-amps-thd-n-and-thd-specifications.6194/. That only resurfaced here because of one of the peculiarities of the product, which was a significant increase when the level was reduced, for a component that will likely never be operated at maximum.
How many $99 "finish it yourself" Khadas toneboards have been sold for no good reason other than it's the cheapest thing with the highest number? On the other hand, this review will probably sell zero SoundBlasterX G6s because it isn't as "good" despite the fact that when used as intended and the way most people will use it--plugged into a computer or phone, not using ASIO or WASAPI, and not cranked to maximum volume--it is actually
better. And it comes with a case! And drivers! And a fully discreet headphone amp! And you're not tethered to a wall socket as with a discreet Khadas/amp setup! And you don't get top octave hash of the Khadas! Most people won't notice any of that, though. They'll just notice that the SINAD is lower than a Toneboard, and that when run wide open (which will never occur in actual use) "we are talking nearly 1% THD+N!!!" Even though almost no one actually using this thing will
ever have that happen, and measurements elsewhere where it does
not happen. Instead, they will get the benefit of IMD that blows away the Toneboard
and equals a Benchmark DAC3 in actual use, lower distortion than the Toneboard, a product from a reputable manufacturer, actual drivers designed by the manufacturer, and on, and on...
It's a matter of presentation, I suppose. What you seem to despise is even the slightest technical fault, and when there is one, it tends to be followed with lots of exclamation points and whatnot, instead of an explanation of whether it actually matters. I agree that technical faults are unfortunate, but in many instances they really don't matter.
Plus, I think its more fair to point out flaws in presentation and measurements here than simply griping about it in another forum as many are prone to do. Tone and presentation are critical. Years ago, when I was doing what you are doing with test equipment no one else had, I was a bit dismayed looking back years later. What I had intended the take-away to be was not what it actually was. Ah, well, enough said. Carry on with the good measurements.
