I don't worry too much about filter cramping myself, most of my projects are 24/44.1 But that's because I rely on plugins that use internal oversampling. This setup leads to lower required HDD data transfer rates so I can use more silent HDDs, and disk space needs are also reduced.
I did an experiment a few years ago, to remaster a stereo track. Went all the way to 300+ Khz sampling rate. I sincerely cannot remember what equalizers or compressors I used on that project, cos it is a while ago. It was done via a virtual audio interface that comes with Reaper, known as Dummy.
So there is absolutely no need to output any audio. Most budget audio interfaces such as the EMU 0404 USB that was my daily driver audio interface, top out at 192K, so even in offline mixing mode in the DAW, I'm not sure how high I could raise the sample rate, with the real device still selected, as the output - have not really tried anything higher than 192K in offline mode with a physical audio device.
Anyway the result was pretty startling. After downsampling to 48K, the top end became "sharper" but glossy, so much easier to hear the effects of compression. The challenge is - not all plugins play nicely above 192K, so one has to either use a trusted plugin from a developer like Waves, which does a good job of publishing what sample rates their plugins support, or actually test each plugin individually, using something like PluginDoctor, or in my case a bundle of analyzer tools running in a dedicated DAW project - where I carry out such tests, to see or myself, what kind of distortion is being created by plugins, and what sort of noise if any is inherent in a plugin.
My thinking, from a purist perspective, is in theory, if I could run all plugins at really high sample rates, like 700K, during mixing, and for compressors during mastering, @ even higher sample rates, to completely avoid the need for oversampling, or at least reduce the amount of internal oversampling needed in compressor plugins, the final result would more closely approximate what occurs in analog gear. Whether that is good or bad, is a separate consideration.
Why? It may be negligible, but with every plugin which oversamples internally, which is the correct implementation when running @ 48K or 44.1K, I still feel that something is lost, and furthermore we are at the mercy of the quality of that oversampling implementation. I have not done comparative experiments, cos even if there was a benefit, my current gear which I use regularly, would grind to a halt, if I regularly wished to use higher sample rates above 48K, sometimes I'm already struggling @ 48K and need to bounce things down, to fit everything in the CPU available. So for me the effort to do a lot of experimentation, at this time is pointless, cos I cannot take any advantage of the improvement at very high sample rates, in my DAW, in real time cos of CPU limitations. Typically I'm mixing over 70 tracks in a song, with tons of effects.
But I do have a compromise. I mix at 48K(or 44.1K depending on what my client sends me) which I'll refer to as "single", most of the time, but when done with mixing, the final stereo result, bounced down i.e mixed offline @ 96K (or 88.2K), so lets call this "double". Whenever I compare the double to the single, the double always sounds better. Always. I could postulate all manner of reasons for this, in my case, I am sure some of the bundled plugins in Reaper are compromised. For example the Reaper parametric EQ cramps, at single sample rates, and their default compressor does not oversample. I have been using these tools for over a decade, partly cos they generally get the job done, and at single sample rate, have very low CPU utilisation, so in spite of their well known and well documented flaws (huge thanks to Dan Worral), its hard to get away from them. This may explain why my offline double mix always sounds better than the single. I do use other EQ's which do not cramp, and compressors with oversampling, but these two staple plugins are used all over my mixes, hard to get away from them.
Going forward, I'm more likely to be mixing @ 96K, when I have a CPU that can handle this, so I'm listening the mix, during mixing, at the desired target rate.
The theories related to oversampling are great, and it is wonderful to have a good reliable valid explanation for what we are hearing, but at the end of the day, we all now have the liberty and choice, to try out various options and listen to the end result. Then decide.
Something I'm looking forward to, whenever I am brave enough to upgrade to version 7 of Reaper, is the selective oversampling, where one can decide how much oversampling each plugin will achieve - from the DAW, and Reaper is responsible for the up and downsampling, so this is done in a uniform manner, rather than relying on the quality of oversampling chosen by each plugin's developer. That will be an interesting experiment, so for EQ's I could choose dual i.e 2x, and for any dynamics processors (compressors, limiters, etc) - maybe 8 x. and this is all done in real time.
What I am especially pleased about, is we have reasonably priced dongle DAC's like the TempTec Sonata BHD which for less than $40, level the playing field, and almost anyone can now listen to good quality audio, with fewer compromises.