my wavelab 6 supports max 384K pcm - that’s cool and i use it for high speed dubbing
the 11.2 has many new gimmicks but pcm is still at 384K - how comes?
nowadays 1536K converters exist already - how do i make such files for testing the converters?
the WL slogan says: High-end mastering and editing for digital distribution
soo, how does one reach high-end samplerate with it? 
Which converters support higher sample rates than 384kHz?
i’m currently testing akm ak4499 series and rohm bd34302ekv - these can go quadruple 384
and these are older which go at least twice 384 (can’t swear by all of them - that’s a list from the net):
Holo Spring 2
Holo May
Denafrips Terminator
Denafrips Terminator +
Chord DAVE
Chord Mojo
Chord Hugo2
Chord Hugo TT2
Chord Qutest
Topping E50S
Topping D30
Topping D90
iFi Micro USB
iFi Pro iDSD
RME ADI-2 DAC FS
Topping D50
SMSL SU-8
SMSL SU-9
SMSL M100/M200/M400/M500
SMSL IQ
Topping NX4
Gustard DAC-X16
Topping D70
CJH
and there are more…
so yeah, stuff that exceeds 384K PCM exists for almost 10 years already
and dsd is also around and been for a long time - also getting ignored
i get that one can’t edit dsd but import and export would be good
and PCM up-to-date rates is no question 
When even the “Sanken CO-100K” is not enough…
hehe, i’m really not sure if that sanken is enough - most likely, in most daily situations u67 would trump it .
as my takeaway of the high samplerates would be disabled filtering and oversampling of those chips - they allow it at these rates.
and a quick search revealed that reaper already supports 768 - it’s formidable how they manage to catch up and eventually outrun the dinosaurs of daw world yet pricing is so low compared.
It wouldn’t be a problem for WaveLab to support 768kHz or higher. It’s just a number that doesn’t change anything from WaveLab’s point of view, but it multiplies CPU consumption and significantly increases memory requirements (which can also cause slower rendering due to CPU caching issues).
If this has never been implemented, it’s because the benefits are not apparent. The higher the sampling rate, the slower the rendering workflows become. All this to process frequencies that are not audible to humans.
All the professionals I have spoken with, for whom time is precious (an hour of work in a studio has a price! ), are satisfied with 96kHz. It’s a pragmatic choice.
Rendering at 768kHz takes at least 8 times longer than at 96kHz. This is the first time that I think this topic is addressed on this forum, which reflects that very few users must be interested.
Well, there is some use for ultrasonics, though.