…and I would like to see double blind testing, performed by those self proclaimed “audiophiles” (including those “experts” who seriously think that there is a difference between digital cables… 
) to see if there is any (!) perceivable difference between 48 kHz and 192 kHz (to take the two most extreme examples).
I would BET that, as well as with and without heavy processing, there is none. This is snake oil, there is no scientific basis for any other result, because the difference in the information between the “low” and the “high” sample rate audio signal is not audible to the human ear.
All you add is ultrasound, which is such a waste.
Again, I agree that processing must be done (in some cases) using oversampling, possibly heavy ultrasampling, but this is for mathematical reasons during the process (FM synthesizers being a good example), but after all mathematical transformations, the result can be easily scaled back to the regular sampling frequency.
It’s a bit like electrial engineers calculating with the square root of “-1”, which is “i”, but the final result for the end user doesn’t contain any complex numbers.
I stand by what I said: 48 kHz of sample rate is all you need, except if you are producing for bats. 