I do not know if this is applicable in the specific case of Pink Floyd recordings, but there is not necessarily a correlation between sampling rate and master quality. Said another way:
master quality ≠ mastering quality
Over the years, I’ve spent an embarrassing amount at sites like HDTracks to reacquire favorite recordings at higher sampling rates, generally to find that sound quality is rarely better than my dusty old CDs, and occasionally, it’s worse! A high-rez Cars album that I bought from HDTracks turned out to be the 24-bit, 192 kHz files from the studio after they remastered the album for ear-bud listeners (boosted bass and compressed dynamic range). LOL.
We naively assume that if a recording is available at 24-bits, 192 kHz, the source and mastering quality are worthy of the high-rez treatment and associated storage and bandwidth cost. All too often, this is not the case.
I’ve found that this applies to MQA as well. According to the marketing, we’re receiving the version that was approved by the artist, from analog to analog and all of that. But, were members of Pink Floyd actually consulted before their albums were re-released on TIDAL in MQA? Possible (for the members still alive), but I’d be surprised.