No. Once again, the original file was at 192 kHz. So it makes sense that the reproduced version of it also be 192 kHz. If the content was at 96 kHz, you would have a point. But that is not the case here.
Whoever believed the original should have been at 192 kHz, wants to see the same come out of MQA process. It is missing the market dynamics to instead downsample that to 96 kHz.
Amir, if the market dynamics are a concern, then the MQA encoder shouldn't downsample the original 192k to 96k in the first place. The fact that the original file was 192k is completely irrelevant because the MQA encoder first converts that 192k PCM file to a 96k PCM file, and then does all its perceptual encoding and "folding" on
that 96k PCM file. It is no different than if a human being manually ran the 192k PCM file through a downsampling app to convert it to 96k PCM and then ran that 96k PCM file through an MQA encoder. In that case, there's no way in the world you would ever try to justify MQA lighting up the "192k" light on the decoded playback.
The "192k" MQA file is misleading precisely
because the original PCM file was 192k - it creates the false impression that MQA is restoring the original 192k sample-rate data when it is not.
The fact that the market expects/"likes" to have a 192k PCM original still be labeled as 192k when it comes out of an MQA Decoder does not mean that's what MQA should do - in fact, it makes it fraudulent for MQA (or any MQA device) to give the impression that the MQA file retains the original sample rate.
Either the ultrasonics afforded by a 192k sample rate are irrelevant, in which case there's no need for MQA to claim it does 192k; or else those ultrasonics are relevant, in which case it's a problem that MQA throws them out and totally fraudulent for MQA to claim that it retains them. You can't have it both ways.