“But Sonar sounds like Sonar”

I totally agree with Poco.
It's all in his mind.
All the best.

Google points to endless number of discussions. The summary:
DAWs should not sound different. What they should do (exact) is pure mathematic, there is no place for different "interpretations", like there is for example in FX processing. But:
a) not all commonly used algorithms exist in all DAWs (such as pan laws, special forms of dithering, particular precision during calculations, etc).
b) in any program there is at least one bug (except in TeX... at least no one has found the next one for a while )
c) there can be different approaches and so results when it comes to the "border" conditions, f.e. when something is digitally clipping.
 
Note that to claim "Sonar sounds like Sonar" the person had to spend quite some time in Sonar. Even to put several tracks together, adjust fader levels and export the result, a ton of (Sonar specific) options has to be checked and set correctly. Such person can be easily trolled with the question "how much time you was using Sonar before you have started to recognize its distinct sound?"

Through my life I have used just about every DAW out there. Its a much smaller list of those I haven't used. I do think Sonar does have a sound. It is in the pro channel.. If one does not employ the PC there is no difference in the sound of Sonar and any other DAW if any said DAW is also not using plugins that alter the sound. I kind of like the "sound of Sonar".
 
I was watching the TV show Scorpion Monday when the "brilliant" leader of the group was recording on an old Radio Shack cassette recorder. He was questioned on his choice of gear. His answer was and I quote was " I get a better signal to noise ratio with analog gear". I kid you not!
 
Its hard sometimes understanding the thinking behind why people think the way they do.      

John
Through my life I have used just about every DAW out there. Its a much smaller list of those I haven't used. I do think Sonar does have a sound. It is in the pro channel.. If one does not employ the PC there is no difference in the sound of Sonar and any other DAW if any said DAW is also not using plugins that alter the sound. I kind of like the "sound of Sonar".
 
I was watching the TV show Scorpion Monday when the "brilliant" leader of the group was recording on an old Radio Shack cassette recorder. He was questioned on his choice of gear. His answer was and I quote was " I get a better signal to noise ratio with analog gear". I kid you not!
 
Its hard sometimes understanding the thinking behind why people think the way they do.      

 
The ProChannel is nothing more than a set of effects though. If you enable the ProChannel but don't turn on any of the modules, there is absolutely no difference in the sound. If you could extract those PC modules as VST's and loaded them up into Cubase, it would sound exactly the same as enabling the modules in Sonar. 

Bottleneck? Is that a technical term?

I opened up my latest Sonar project in NOTEPAD.  It took 6 hours.  I did not see a single 1 or 0 out of place.

Protools had the original "summing bottleneck" with only 48 bits.  Sonar had (and has) 64 bits to open that bottle on the side of the curb.

floating-point addition is not necessarily associative; (a + b) + c is not necessarily equal to a + (b + c). addition and multiplication are also not necessarily distributive; (a + b) × c may not be the same as a × c + b × c. since the order of computations in floating point math can produce differences in the end results, it seems plausible that different DAWs may not perfectly null. i would expect these variances to be extremely small and insignificant and undetectable by ear but who knows maybe they build up. :-) i'm not sure why it matters.

AT
Protools had the original "summing bottleneck" with only 48 bits.

Actually it was worse than that. TDM had a 24-bit bus, and the audio had to fit within that straight jacket. 

Never heard of him....seems to take have a high opinion of himself though

arse