No, not necessarily. MQA encodes whatever high resolution source it is fed. That could be a flat transfer from a first generation, 40 year old master tape. Or it could be a dynamically squashed, recent remaster. Or it could be something in between. Examples abound from the limited supply of MQA already available on Tidal.
AJ
Well, if you listen the Bob Stuart on that video presentation they only encode the version they consider to be the master as decided by the performer or content owners. They can technically encoded anything but decisions have to be made as to âThe Masterâ.
Bob Stuart is not doing the encoding â the record labels are. And, exactly as you indicate, the record labels get to pick and choose. The âmasterâ is whatever they say it is. The idea that MQA is some automatic conduit to the original master tapes is a pipe dream. Rather, it is just another delivery method for high resolution audio, which can be a flat transfer from the master tapes or many generations and alterations removed from the master tapes.
AJ
I consider there is a lot more integrity at play than you suggest. We shall see.
Integrity. Major record labels.
OK.
Nah. But you can believe that if it warms the cockles of your heart.
Some years ago, I recall an unrealistically idealistic person who insisted that DTS-HD Master Audio â by letter of the law contract â had to be direct transfer of the studio master. Well, the âmasterâ in Master Quality Authenticated is no different from the same in DTS-HD Master Audio. Quality in, quality out. Garbage in, garbage out. The label, studio, or content owner decides what is or is not the master. And as consumers, we get whatever they choose.
AJ
Honestly, I just wish the audiophile community would expend 10% of the energy they do on stuff like this on pressuring mainstream labels to do good mastering and post-production with nice dynamic range - you know, stuff that would actually stretch the technical capabilities of CD Red Book, never mind all this.
But no, an âauthenticatedâ LED light on a shiny new box of tricks and chasing ludicrous sampling rates containing HF that will never be heard is where its at.
Already that is a misunderstanding of MQA. Itâs not about ridiculas sample rates you canât hear.
We have 20 Hz to 20 KHz hearing range when we are young. I am down to 13.5 KHz and this will not impare my full enjoyment of music.
Itâs about sampling the Analog signal at such a rate as to be able to remove what is called Temporal blur. Pre and post ringing. Sounds that do not appear in nature. Sounds that can mask real sounds making them inaudible and thus impair the accurate presentation of the music.
This high quality signal can then be delivered down a digital pipeline with low bandwidth and unpacked or not at the receiving end.
It is seen as PCM so no product can block it also it is fully backwards compatible and will play back at above CD quality on and PCM capable playback device.
Whatâs not to like?
Sheesh. This is the second time that you have jumped on one of my posts for the wrong reasons. You need to improve your reading comprehension â because you and I are saying much the same thing. I am not making claims. Rather, I am saying that no claims should be made or assumed. The âmasterâ and its provenance are wild cards. And MQA does not change that variability.
AJ
All this interest though itâs good stuff indicated by these very message boards and the muchos excitement we have seen. I reckon impressions of tidalâs mqa launch is on average really quite positive.
Personally I am fairly impressed despite only receiving the tidal unfolding part or Roon slightly higher res etc with a chord 2qute non mqa dac and bluesound pulse mini elsewhere.
Hopefully more will follow we donât even know about yet. Quite a cool few weeks. This, 1.3, bluesound Roon ready. Keeping me interested thatâs for sure.
You said this in another thread. Iâm afraid it showed up your lack of technical understanding of what high sampling rates do. They are absolutely nothing to do with âtime slicesâ as you put it.
No offense intended to anyone, but to me this falls within the âHitchensâs razorâ argument. The burden is on the person/entity making claims to provide evidence. And in this case, that burden would fall on the company releasing âmasterâ versions (and making money) rather than the consumer of the product. Lack of provenance has long been the dirty (not so) secret of the high-resolution music market.
This said, Iâm personally interested in good quality, non-dynamically squashed versions of music I like. And that could be 16/44.1 or whateverâŠ
Perhaps you should visit the presentation by Bob Stuart and Bob Ludwig amongs others at the Montreal Audio Engineering Society presentation I posted earlier on this site.
It covers this exact point. You are correct, high sample rates alone are not enough and this is where MQA comes in.
Here
Please stop spamming this. 
This theoretical discussion is no longer necessary.
We now have content, and full decoding is hardware at various price ranges.
We can find out if it works.
In many cases, we can find the same mastering in regular HR, or 16/44, as the MQA.
So just listen. If you want to share you opinion after an actual listening experience, this is the right place.
How well do you truly understand sampling theory? âTemporal blur,â as you reference, is real. But it cannot be altered or removed without consequence. Time and frequency are inextricably interconnected. Improving time domain performance necessarily is degrading frequency domain performance â and vice versa. There is no free lunch, just a set of tradeoffs. MQA makes its particular set of tradeoffs. And those tradeoffs may be worthwhile. However, they are no panacea that brings time domain and frequency domain into perfect harmony. Such is not possible.
AJ
Sorry, if you make a point that is factually incorrect, it needs pointing out. Despite 2016/17 being the âpost-truthâ world.
Well, if the trade offs are good enough to excite Bob Stuart Bob Ludwig amongst many others, I think we are moving forward very nicely.
As has been said. The Music is here and all we have to do is listen.
In th end, itâs all about the music
You can do better than this. Next thing is to dismiss MQA as âfake newsâ.
For now yay and nay appear to be equally repetitive. On the bright side: I have found an album in MQA I actually want to listen to (the new Colin Vallon on ECM).
Two tracks in: sounds great (undecoded). As would most probably the 44.1 and 96 versions. 
What is the deal with ECM and streaming now? I thought it used to be a complete no-no.
The other day I found Godarâs âMaterâ on Tidal. This was previously released by ECM
http://wsm.serpent.pl/sklep/okladki/okl_okl_24442.jpg
Albeit a different cover than the original release.