Not a big issue at all, but I’ve recently been investigating using higher sample rates in tracking and rendering. Haven’t made up my mind if the extra cpu burden and potential vst problems are worth the increase in audio quality, but all the same I was wondering, why is there no option to render at 88.2?
Seems like a better option than 96 in terms of the mathematics behind converting it back down to 44.1.
I read the other day on the Protools forum how the guys were arguing between which is the best for a production 44, 88 or 96? It’s seems that the conclusion is, that your target should be what the medium is your creating for (well…it’s not a conclusion but that was the lost post on the subject).
In other words if you are going to create music for normal CD there is no need to create a file in 88.2 because you won’t gain any quality when you have to render back to 44.
When Digital systems that can play 88 or higher than this would be a cool feature to have. But your right on one thing, it’s going to cost you at the CPU level 
Right on. I’ve heard that too.
I did however also read something about starting with a higher sample rate and converting back to 44.1 can somehow give you a little bit more dynamic range (or the illusion of it) than just using 44.1 the whole time.
Note I’m not endorsing that as true, just something I read.
It is subtle, but I can definitely hear the difference working in 44.1 and 88.2/96.
I think the main (only?) advantage of using high sample rates is that some FX and synths will sound better. Perhaps also pitch shifting of the samples will benefit, but I don’t know for sure.
For sure some FX and synths sound very different at different sample rates.
BTW, I’ve made a thread about additional render options… here: https://forum.renoise.com/t/192khz-render-option/19487